The Moaa Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464219250
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
7038388102
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,836,222
Expenses
$1,836,222
Assets
$752,854
Liabilities
$262,998

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LT GEN BRIAN T KELLY (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LT GEN BRIAN T KELLY (PRESIDENT/CEO): $694,915 total reported compensation
  • COL JAMES O'BRIEN (EXECUTIVE VP/COO): $389,746 total reported compensation
  • REGINA D CHAVIS (EXECUTIVE VP/CFO): $348,093 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Carry on charitable and educational programs for active duty military, reserve, national guard, retired, and former members of the uniformed services and their family members and surviving spouses.

What it reported doing in 2025

Career transition/professional education outreach: through the moaa foundation career transition track, moaa delivers best-in-class career development programs. Due to funding provided by the foundation, services are free and open to the broader uniformed services and veteran communities. In 2025, moaa experts provided award winning career transition assistance and education resources for free both in-person and in virtual settings. In total, the foundation supported the following virtual and in-person events:4 seminars, 13 workshops, 42 webinars, 7 virtual career fairs, and 1 in-person networking event at total force+.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd 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: 83.2%; rating input score 83; 39th 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: 0%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.1% of revenue deployed · 77.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $695K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • 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: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.