Ecmc
Legal name: Educational Credit Management Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411778617
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Phone
- 855-810-4922
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Financial Institutions
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $264,998,856
- Expenses
- $261,591,267
- Assets
- $209,123,067
- Liabilities
- $167,236,990
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DANIEL FISHER (PRESIDENT & CEO, ECMC GROUP)
- CHAD TATE (PRESIDENT, ECMC)
- JEREMY WHEATON (FORMER PRESIDENT & CEO, ECMC GROUP)
Highest reported compensation
- DANIEL FISHER (PRESIDENT & CEO, ECMC GROUP): $1,503,752 total reported compensation
- MARTIN SCANLON (CFO & TREASURER): $1,011,175 total reported compensation
- CHAD TATE (PRESIDENT, ECMC): $688,729 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
ECMC is a nonprofit corporation that helps student loan borrowers succeed in repayment, supports schools and lenders with default prevention and portfolio management, and provides college access services through The College Place centers.
What it reported doing in 2024
Loan guarantee program: ecmc is the designated guaranty agency for California, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia under the federal family education loan program (ffelp). A guaranty agency under ffelp provides federal student loan guarantees and ongoing processing services to u.s. Department of education-approved ffelp lenders and postsecondary education students and their parents for loans extended under ffelp. Additional services provided by ecmc in fulfilling its role as a guaranty agency include but are not limited to: assisting borrowers and parents in preparing for college, financial literacy and money management education, education regarding the obligations associated with student loans, and education on how to avoid student loan default.on march 30, 2010, the health care and education affordability reconciliation act of 2010 was signed into law and amended the higher education act by terminating the authority to make or insure new loans under ffelp after june 30, 2010. As a result, ecmc ceased guaranteeing loans effective july 1, 2010. All existing ffelp loans will continue to be guaranteed and serviced as ffelp loans throughout their remaining life, which generally averages 5 years. As of december 31, 2024, the non-default guarantee portfolio consisted of $11.2 billion in original outstanding principal balance.on november 1, 2016, ecmc entered into a three-year agreement with the u.s. Department of education (ed), whereby ecmc will participate in ed's project success by providing services on behalf of ed to certain minority-serving institutions (institutions). The services that ecmc may provide to the institutions include institutional support services to benefit the institutions and services to assist the institution's students. All of the services provided must relate to federal student loans. The secretary has authorized ecmc to use the guarantor federal reserve fund to pay the cost of providing services under the project success program, not to exceed $20 million for the three-year agreement. The agreement has been extended through september 30, 2025. The guarantor federal reserve fund reimbursed ecmc for expenses incurred in the amount of $3.3 million for the year ended december 31, 2024.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 88% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 83% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 78
- Accountability: 94
- Sustainability: 38
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.9%; rating input score 81
- Program expense ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Pass
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Limited
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 36th 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: 1.3%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.8; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 80.9% of revenue deployed · 81.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $214.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.5M · 21 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $11.5M reported
- Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 302 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 329 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.