New Hampshire Veterinary Medical Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 020278085
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Amherst, RI, United States
- Phone
- 603-782-2825
- Rating
- 40
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $244,860
- Expenses
- $200,866
- Assets
- $463,412
- Liabilities
- $84
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Katherine Larson DVM (Vice President)
- Luke Zagar DVM (President)
People named in this filing
- Tonya Brown DVM (Trustee)
- Jamie Kule DVM (Trustee)
- Jane Barlow Roy DVM (Trustee)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Helping to Advance Veterinary Medicine. All sales are final. We are unable to provide refunds. SHIPPING POLICY: In most cases, items requiring shipping will be mailed within three business days of payment. Most items are immediately shipped via U.S.Postal Service Priority Shipping. Express shipping can be provided for additional (actual) cost of shipping. |. Cheryl Catrambone **_CURRENTLY SEEKING VOLUNTEERS FOR EACH COMMITTEE!_** | | --- | Close. | **_NEW HAMPSHIRE VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION CONSTITUTION_** **ARTICLE I.** The name of the corporation shall be the New Hampshire Veterinary Medical Association, hereby referred to as the NHVMA. **ARTICLE II.** The purpose of the NHVMA is to promote methods of practice in the profession which contribute to higher ethical and professional standards. This includes: provision of continuing education programs, representation of the...
What it reported doing in 2024
Membership representation before state legislature and agencies in matters affecting the veterinary medical profession.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 24
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 0
- Sustainability: 67
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 25.3%; rating input score 25
- Program expense ratio: 30.8%; rating input score 31
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 18%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.31; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 25.3% of revenue deployed · 30.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 12 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $91K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 19 of 21 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 25/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 31/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.