National Institute for Medical Assistant Advancement Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 813293048
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2016
- Location
- Middletown, CT, USA
- Phone
- 7207109050
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Vocational, Technical Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,727,613
- Expenses
- $3,205,548
- Assets
- $1,917,157
- Liabilities
- $7,477,655
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOHN BUTT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MARK MASSELLI (CHAIRMAN): $944,454 total reported compensation
- MARY BLANKSON (DIRECTOR): $362,701 total reported compensation
- JASON PNIEWSKI (TREASURER): $351,415 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
National institute for medical assistant advancement inc. ("nimaa")'s mission is to promote education and health by establishing, operating educational and training programs for the education of medical assistants and similar health professionals. (see schedule o)nimaa's mission is to promote education and health also includes:-developing and refining an educational and training model for medical assistants and similiar health professionals, and-promoting a more advanced model of training medical assistants and similar health professionals for primary care that is consistent with best practices for person-centered team based care.
What it reported doing in 2024
To provide a national program to graduate medical assistants capable of working as effective members of a medical team in federally qualified health centers (fqhc's) and other high-performing primary care organizations.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 81% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 66
- Sustainability: 12
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.4%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 81.1%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- 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: -17.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 3.9; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 15.2%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 95.4% of revenue deployed · 81.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $944K · 10 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 8 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.
- Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.