Massachusetts Ambulance Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010894923
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Burlington, MA, USA
Phone
7812296667
Rating
24
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,839,091
Expenses
$3,192,796
Assets
$3,963,049
Liabilities
$392

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEVIN TURNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DENNIS CATALDO (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN CHEMALY (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KEVIN TURNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $152,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The general purpose is to unite and associate together owners of private ambulance services; to maintain harmony and good government among the members of the corporation; to elevate generally the standards of owners of private ambulance services; to encourage the development of the operation of ambulances by owners of private ambulance services; to exchange information and ideas among its members; to acquire and distribute information relating to the operation of private ambulance services; to establish proper standards of ethical conduct among its members; to obtain and distribute information and advice concerning sound business procedures and techniques.

What it reported doing in 2025

Affilation services - sponsored a conference for ambulance providers

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

REVIEW - Revenue has grown recently. 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: 1
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.4%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 1
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 7th 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: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 38.8% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 40.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.4% of revenue deployed · 1.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $39K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $152K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 1/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.