Maine Association of Area Agencies on Aging
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 421710821
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Biddeford, ME, USA
- Phone
- 2076260972
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $0
- Expenses
- $1,325
- Assets
- $3,373
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
People named in this filing
- MEGAN WALTON (CHAIR)
- TABATHA CASO (VICE CHAIR)
- JOY BARESSI SAUCIER (SECRETARY)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To advance solutions for the unmet needs of elders through collaboration with funders, other service providers and advocacy organizations.
What it reported doing in 2025
In 2025, m4a continued to advocate on behalf of the older adult population served by the agencies on aging (aaas).m4a's role also entails discussion with oads on contracts, programs, service delivery, and potential joint opportunities that may arise in the future. The aaas contract with Maine council on aging for some advocacy-related needs. There are five board members in m4a, one board member representing each aaa. M4a also convenes regularly to discuss best practices in older americans act programs and service delivery.
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
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 38
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- 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: Limited
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.55; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -15.5% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -11.9% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -16.5% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 10 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.