Alle-kiski Paremedic Unit for Life Suppo Rt Emergency Response

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251604818
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Natrona Heights, PA, USA
Phone
7242267041
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Support Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$81,271
Expenses
$39,375
Assets
$104,348

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ROBERT MORAN (VICE CHAIR/SECR)
  • KAREN HOUGH (MEMBER AT LARGE)
  • JAMES ERB (MEMBER AT LARGE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Alle-kiski paramedic unit for life support emergency response (akpulser) provides assistance to local emergency services. Akpulser, a joint-venture of alle-kiski medical center and area ambulance services, affords access to paramedic staffing at all times. We assist the ambulance services in meeting the staffing criteria established by Pennsylvania state law.akpulser is licensed by the Pennsylvania department of health. We were the first paramedic response unit in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania established as a not for profit corporation under the control of not for profit ambulance services and a not for profit hospital.the akpulser takes calls 24 hours a day. The unit, staffed by state licensed paramedics, is dispatched directly to the scene of an emergency or can meet an ambulance already en route to a medical facility. The akpulser paramedics remain with the patient until he or she is transported by the ambulance to the hospital or his/her choice.the akpulser vehicle is stocked wi

What it reported doing in 2015

To provide emergency life support care

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.1%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 51.6%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.65; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $46K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 6 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.