Edinburg Teachers Credit Union

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741279052
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Edinburg, TX, USA
Phone
9562593511
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,501,513
Expenses
$3,137,322
Assets
$96,837,310
Liabilities
$80,914,961

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY CARPENTER (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY CARPENTER (CEO): $194,733 total reported compensation
  • LAURA VAZQUEZ (CFO): $103,260 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Financial institution provides basic financial services to members in the form of checking, savings and certificate accounts, iras, and loans (signature and vehicle). The credit union also provides convenience services such as online banking, telephone banking, money orders and traveler's checks.

What it reported doing in 2025

Etcu members are afforded a low 25 minimum deposit for membership. Member savings accounts pay quarterly dividends at competitive rates with no monthly service fees. Special savings accounts are availed at no extra costs for members wishing to separate savings for their own individually ear-marked purposes. Etcu offers low to no-cost checking accounts with free debit card service. Checking accounts pay monthly dividends. Competitive rate certificate accounts and individual retirement accounts (iras) are offered. 24-hours a day 7-days a week access to accounts is available via automated teller machines, online banking and automated telephone lines.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

REVIEW - 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: 60
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 20

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.4%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 30.87; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.84; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -18.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $195K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.