Moberly Area Economic Development C

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431475001
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Moberly, MO, USA
Phone
6602638811
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$273,577
Expenses
$291,081
Assets
$652,068
Liabilities
$3,299

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAYLEE PAFFRATH (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KAYLEE PAFFRATH (PRESIDENT): $110,109 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 promote investment within randolph & howard counties through both expansion of existing businesses as well as new business attraction. These investments lead to creation of new jobs, increased tax base for taxing jurisdictions and municipalities, and diversification of the local economy.

What it reported doing in 2025

In order to promote growth in the two-county region, maedc staff members provide services for business retention and expansion, business attraction, and entrepreneurial development. Within those activities, staff regularly visits with area major employers to provide resources like labor reports, cooperative marketing opportunities, and skills training. In addition, staff work with several state and regional partners to conduct consultant briefings, familiarization tours, and regularly submit requests for proposals in an effort to gain site visits in the region for prospective employers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 76% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.4%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 65.1%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

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: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.4%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.24; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.2% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.4% of revenue deployed · 65.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $189K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes related organizations
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.