First American Capital Corporation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371439848
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Hales Corners, WI, USA
Phone
4146042044
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,174,337
Expenses
$2,037,038
Assets
$13,230,258
Liabilities
$2,998,426

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFF BOWMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • CRAIG CLEMENTS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • GARY MEJCHAR (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • WILLIAM BESON (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • GARY MEJCHAR (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $170,932 total reported compensation
  • WILLIAM BESON (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $170,848 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of facc is to contribute to economic development in Wisconsin indian country through facilitating access to capital in the form of business loans for american indian owned enterprises and through providing pre- and post-loan technical assistance.

What it reported doing in 2025

Program services: facc mission-driven outcomes included deploying micro-business loans resulting in new family supporting full time jobs being created and contributing to the retention of existing jobs in Wisconsin. In addition, clients received facc one-to-one business management capacity building technical assistance and business management workshops delivered virtually - and in person - designed to increase the competitiveness of facc clients and assist in their eventual graduation from the facc portfolio when meeting the credit standards of commercial banks. In 2025 facc awarded grants to qualifying small businesses disproportionately impacted by the pandemic to help further recovery and to build resilience against the next economically disruptive events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 82% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.3%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 85.9%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $54.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: 96.7%; rating input score 97; 37th 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; 63rd 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 51.2%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.49; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.8%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.3% of revenue deployed · 85.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.