Ellington Volunteer Ambulance Corps Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 060965894
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2021, Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Ludlow, CT, USA
- Phone
- 8608703170
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Ambulance, Emergency Medical Transport Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $19,146
- Expenses
- $15,886
- Assets
- $20,635
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Peter Hany Sr (President)
- Bruce Hoffman (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Peter Hany Sr (President)
- Bruce Hoffman (Vice President)
- Nicole Caron (Training/Supply)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide high quality, compassionate, and cost effective emergency medical services to the town of Ellington, CT, as well as mutual aid coverage and support to our surrounding communities
What it reported doing in 2024
Provides the Town of Ellington and surrounding areas with emergency medical treatment, health, and ambulatory services on a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week basis. Services provided under contract with the Town of Ellington. Revenue and expenses for this program service are handled by the Town of Ellington, see Town audit and reports for fiscal details of this program.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 68% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and assets have declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 63
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 58%; rating input score 58
- Program expense ratio: 70%; rating input score 70
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 17%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 58% of revenue deployed · 70% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $11K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.