Greeneville Works Employees Savings Association Credit Union

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
620969261
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Greeneville, TN, USA
Phone
4237830337
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$121,011
Expenses
$103,424
Assets
$1,757,068
Liabilities
$829,846

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KRISTY MAYS (MANAGER/TREA): $55,610 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Credit union-to provide services for approximately 385 members in the form of loans, savings, and other financial services.

What it reported doing in 2025

The credit union provided a variety of deposit services for its members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 78% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

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: 90
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 40

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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.5%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.99; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 53.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $103K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $56K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.