National Nurse Practitioner Residency & Fellowship Training Consortium Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
475041001
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Middletown, CT, USA
Phone
8603476971
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$692,331
Expenses
$687,023
Assets
$161,664
Liabilities
$997,352

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK MASSELLI (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • KERRYANNE BAMRICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK MASSELLI (PRESIDENT/CEO): $944,454 total reported compensation
  • MARGARET FLINTER (CHAIRPERSON): $522,239 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

The purpose of national nurse practitioner residency & fellowship training consortium, inc. Is to improve healthcare through the development and support of post-graduate residency and fellowship programs for nurse practitioners and physician assistants/associates. We also seek to improve the availability, efficiency and quality of healthcare fellowship training programs for nurse practitioners (np's) and physician assistants/associates (pa's) and function as an accrediting agency with the purpose of accrediting post-graduate residency and fellowship training programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 54.4%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 72.7%; rating input score 73; 15th 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: 0.8%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 6.17; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 52.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54% of revenue deployed · 54.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $374K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $944K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • 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 2/100.