West Michigan Regional Medical Consortium

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364532682
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Muskegon, MI, USA
Phone
2317281967
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,532,786
Expenses
$2,618,835
Assets
$619,733
Liabilities
$394,181

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR JERRY EVANS MD (CEO/R6 MEDICAL DIRECTOR/PR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR JERRY EVANS MD (CEO/R6 MEDICAL DIRECTOR/PR): $63,124 total reported compensation
  • DR KAL ATTIE MD (REGION 7 MEDICAL DIRECTOR): $60,474 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Supervises and coordinates emergency medical services in muskegon county mi

What it reported doing in 2024

Responsible for oversight of pre-hospital emergency medical services (ems) in muskegon county and approving protocols, reviewing complaints, testing providers, granting privileges to ems agencies and overseeing quality controls. Muskegon county medical control authority regulates and oversees licensed life support agencies and personnel within muskegon county. Mcmca is a community, dues supported entity and does not receive federal or state grant funding. The mission of mcmca is to promote, provide, encourage, and give the pre-hospital care professionals the tools necessary to provide the most up-to-date medical knowledge and treatment options by empowering each pre-hospital care provider with psychomotor and cognitive skills so they might be able to deliver the best professional, compassionate, and appropriate care for each patient that is served by this medical control authority.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 84% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

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: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.4%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.8%; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.4%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.64; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.4% of revenue deployed · 92.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $63K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.