North East Regional Urgent Care Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463816203
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Tuckerton, NJ, USA
Phone
6099780242
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$362,504
Expenses
$205,295
Assets
$368,844
Liabilities
$5,000

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHAUN GINTER MBA FACHE (PRESIDENT)
  • MARKINTOSH BARTHELEMY MD MBA FACEP (VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SHAUN GINTER MBA FACHE (PRESIDENT)
  • MARKINTOSH BARTHELEMY MD MBA FACEP (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN KULIN DO FACEP FCUCM (SECRETARY)

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

NERUCA was formed for the purpose of promoting the common interests of urgent care medicine as an affordable accessible, high quality and accountable acute health care service within the spectrum of acceptable medical practice and to promote the professional interest of urgent care medicine in the Northeast United States.

What it reported doing in 2024

Program service accomplishments - north east regional urgent care associations government affairs committee was active in keeping neruca members informed about proposed legislation impacting the urgent care practice. Members were kept apprised of current issues such various state reporting and safety compliance audits, active bills impacting the urgent care industry, and global reinbursement rates . Members were encouraged to contact local and state representatives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 29%; rating input score 29
  • Program expense ratio: 51.3%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 43.4%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.8; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 36.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 29% of revenue deployed · 51.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 18 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 29/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.