Capital Region Economic Development Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
236291092
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Harrisburg, PA, USA
Phone
7172324099
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$991,038
Expenses
$943,081
Assets
$5,166,299
Liabilities
$889,339

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

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RYAN UNGER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RYAN UNGER (PRESIDENT): $196,340 total reported compensation
  • SCOTT ROGERS (VP, FINANCE): $138,120 total reported compensation
  • MELISSA STONE (VP ECONOMIC): $129,119 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 mission of the capital region economic development corp. Is to be a catalyst for policy change, for job creation and for business growth in cumberland, dauphin and perry counties that enhances the quality of life in our region.

What it reported doing in 2024

To perform and promote economic development in south central Pennsylvania through financing and loan programs, building and site location, international export opportunities, regional infrastructure and existing business retention and expansion. During 2024, credc originated 25 projects with loans, grants and tax credits that resulted in approximately 15.3 million in private investment, 11.4 million in public funding and created or retained 280 jobs in south central Pennsylvania.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.6%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 65.2%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $72.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 97%; rating input score 97; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.8%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.48; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.6% of revenue deployed · 65.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 33 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $615K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $196K · 36 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.