National Association of EMS Educators

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251776095
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4123434775
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Ambulance, Emergency Medical Transport Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,147,703
Expenses
$1,059,741
Assets
$2,087,259
Liabilities
$516,675

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Carlene Thornton (Vice President)
  • Bill Young (President)
  • Stephen Perdziola (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Stephen Perdziola (Executive Director): $111,045 total reported compensation
  • Carlene Thornton (Vice President): $12,200 total reported compensation
  • Kimberly Whitten-Chung (Board Member): $7,325 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 mission of The National Association of EMS Educators is inspiring educational excellence.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Association is a member-driven professional organization consisting of nearly 3,000 professionals largely comprised of EMS training officers, professors, fire safety professionals, and educational leaders working in industry, academia, and government, as well as students studying in the EMS related field. The Association derives its strength from these members, many of whom take a hands-on approach to shaping the policy, programming, and publications of the Association through their volunteer efforts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.8%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.7%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.97; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.8% of revenue deployed · 81.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $866K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $111K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.