Maplewood Community Betterment Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431265372
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Maplewood, MO, USA
Phone
3147818588
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$50,139
Expenses
$13,098
Assets
$600,825
Liabilities
$1

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Patrick Jugo (President)
  • Andrew Bowlin (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Amber Withycombe (Trustee)
  • Dr Bonita Jamison (Trustee)
  • Jerry Gibbs (Director)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Organized to serve the residents, businesses, and government by strengthening and promoting the welfare of the community in the following ways: A) Increase the visibility and enhance the image of Maplewood within the St. Louis metropolitan Region. B) Engage the community in activities and programs that make the city of Maplewood a great place to live. C) Collaborate with the Maplewood Chamber of Commerce, Special Business District and the City of Maplewood in promoting the business environment. D) Support initiatives that promote quality life-long education opportunities in our community. E) Facilitate public engagement on issues relevant to the community. F) Administer the Retail Loan Program.

What it reported doing in 2025

Administer the Retail Loan Program

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.4%; rating input score 36
  • Program expense ratio: 95%; rating input score 95
  • 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: 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 73.9%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 45.87; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -18.7% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.4% of revenue deployed · 95% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $12K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.