DFCU Financial
Legal name: Credit Unions Chartered in the State of Michigan
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 381350130
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Dearborn, MI, USA
- Phone
- 888-336-2700
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $270,939,748
- Expenses
- $228,057,335
- Assets
- $6,661,513,708
- Liabilities
- $6,168,153,941
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Ryan Goldberg (CEO)
- Patrick Maher (President DFCU Financial Partners)
Highest reported compensation
- Brad Sova (Financial Consultant): $1,558,279 total reported compensation
- Ryan Goldberg (CEO): $1,401,942 total reported compensation
- John Friday (Financial Consultant): $613,388 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Highly personalized service, easy to understand, financial expertise offering a full range of financial services and products.
DFCU Financial is a member-owned credit union serving individuals and businesses in Michigan and Florida. It offers a full range of personal and commercial banking services, including checking, savings, mortgages, loans, and treasury management. The credit union is federally insured by the NCUA and has a history of paying annual Cash Back to members since 2007. DFCU Financial emphasizes community engagement and provides resources like financial education and member perks.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 67% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 73
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 50.2%; rating input score 50; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 15.8%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 29.21; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.93; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $228.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.6M · 19 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 14 of 16 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 9 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.