Aipso
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 132732270
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Johnston, RI, US
- Phone
- 4019462310
- Rating
- 42
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $140,283,243
- Expenses
- $133,598,722
- Assets
- $104,901,695
- Liabilities
- $101,163,471
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
27 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Charles Kwolek (President & Chief Executive Officer)
Highest reported compensation
- Charles Kwolek (President & Chief Executive Officer): $845,531 total reported compensation
- Frank Pensabene (SVP & Chief Operating Officer): $418,914 total reported compensation
- Joseph Agresta (VP & Chief Information Officer): $366,169 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
AIPSO is the service provider of choice to insurance industry groups responsible for administering the residual market.
What it reported doing in 2024
AIPSO Insurance Operations Services functions as a service provider to private and commercial risks in support of the auto insurance residual markets Commercial Automobile Insurance Procedures (CAIPs), Joint Underwriting Associations (JUAs), and Personal Automobile Insurance Plans (PAIPs) and Private Passenger Pools (PPPs). We (1)utilize a fronting company vendor in jurisdictions where Plan paper is not currently approved for use, (2)underwrite and issue policies assigned via contract with specific state Plan mechanisms, (3)provide customer service to producers and policyholders, (4)work with a claims vendor to service and settle all claims arising from issued policies and (5)report premium and loss statistical data to the mechanisms statistical agents.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 4.8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.79; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.96; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -61.2% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 9 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $846K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6M reported
- Consistency: 13 of 30 current checks pass · 17 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 6 filed related-organization links
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Interest column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.