Jefferson Credit Union

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630390327
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hoover, AL, USA
Phone
2054444528
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,000,369
Expenses
$4,966,949
Assets
$83,358,762
Liabilities
$76,337,390

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICHARD MORRIS (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA COOPER (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $111,344 total reported compensation
  • REBECCA SMITH (CONTROLLER): $90,922 total reported compensation
  • RICHARD MORRIS (PRESIDENT/CEO): $66,468 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cooperative society incorporated for the twofold purpose of promoting thrift among its members and creating a source of credit for them at legitimate rates of interest.

What it reported doing in 2024

Alabama banking code, section 5-17-1, states that a credit union is a cooperative society incorporated for the twofold purpose of promoting thrift among its members and creating a source of credit for them at legitimate rates of interest. Jefferson credit union, an Alabama state chartered credit union, provides these services to its members who are primarily employees, and their relatives, of jefferson county, Alabama municipality. Additionally, donations of $25.00 made to the Alabama youth sheriffs ranch allows an individual who lives outside of the birmingham metropolitan area but within the state of Alabama the opportunity to qualify for membership in jefferson credit union. As of december 31, 2024, the credit union provided services to approximately 6,858 members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 51
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.78; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.92; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $111K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 39 current checks pass · 16 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

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: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.