The Commission on Massage Therapy Accreditation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200798736
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, USA
Phone
2024036790
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$321,433
Expenses
$323,243
Assets
$578,313
Liabilities
$112,061

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAWN HOGUE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAWN HOGUE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $110,000 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 commission on massage therapy accreditation, a non-profitindependent body, seeks to improve the quality of education for students seeking education in the fields of massage therapy and bodywork through an accreditation process (continued on schedule o) (continued from part iii, line 1) that reflects the current and emerging professional practice standards.

What it reported doing in 2025

The commission on massage therapy accreditation (comta) accredits both educational institutions and programs offering instruction in massage therapy and bodywork or esthetics and skin care. Comta was formed with the mission of establishing and maintaining the quality and integrity of the profession. Since 2002, comta has been recognized by the u.s. Department of education as a specialized accrediting agency.

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 - 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 78.8%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.6%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.79; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.3% of revenue deployed · 78.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $255K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.