Cumberland Area Economic Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202254486
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Mechanicsburg, PA, USA
Phone
7172407180
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Societal Benefit

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,306,479
Expenses
$10,916,651
Assets
$10,932,652
Liabilities
$2,670,508

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JANET ANDERSON (EXECUTIVE DI): $200,484 total reported compensation
  • GREG WELKER (DIRECTOR OF): $139,711 total reported compensation
  • JULIE KORANDA (FINANCE MANA): $73,250 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To preserve, facilitate, promote and foster economic development within cumberland county and the surrounding regions, by providing integrated economic development and tourism marketing services to, and on behalf of, the citizens of the county, the south central Pennsylvania region, and the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

What it reported doing in 2025

Tourism operations serve to market cumberland county as a visitor destination and works closely with scores of active lodging establishments, other attractions, restaurants, and services to present several specific tourism themes to target audiences in consumer, group tour, and small meeting markets. Tourism efforts have generated thousands of leads as a result of direct marketing efforts and increased website visitation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 94% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.6%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 97.9%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: $290.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: 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 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.6% of revenue deployed · 97.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $10.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $200K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 27 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.