Lake Superior Community Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364616294
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lanse, MI, USA
Phone
9065245445
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Personal Social Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,487,558
Expenses
$738,165
Assets
$6,195,305
Liabilities
$1,361,626

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EDWARD EDWARDS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • EDWARD EDWARDS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $138,220 total reported compensation
  • BRITTANY PERRIGO (FINANCE COORDINATOR): $50,527 total reported compensation
  • KEITH ROLOF (DIRECTOR): $1,150 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to empower native american communities by providing comprehensive financial services and resources that enhance economic self-sufficiency, asset building, and long-term stability through homeownership, entrepreneurship, and proactive community development. We are committed to fostering a supportive environment that drives economic growth while promoting energy efficiency, housing sustainability, and improved quality of life. By offering tailored financial education, access to capital, and strategic guidance, we strive to create opportunities for individuals and families to achieve lasting prosperity and economic independence.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization provides lending, grant, and technical assistance programs designed to expand access to affordable housing, home repair financing, credit-building opportunities, and small business support for low-income individuals and communities. During the fiscal year, the organization brokered 12 home loans and 3 home improvement loans, closed 4 additional home loans through the usda ncdfi relending demonstration program, issued 10 credit builder loans, and issued 4 small business loans. The organization also provided asset training and technical assistance to help clients with low or no credit history better understand budgeting, banking, insurance, credit, and the home-buying process. Through its partnership with the federal home loan bank of indianapolis, the organization passed through two neighborhood impact program grants to low-income recipients for home maintenance and repair needs in communities vulnerable to weather-related damage, and one recipient received first-time homebuyer assistance through the homeboost program for first-generation homebuyers. These programs collectively supported the organization's mission of improving financial stability, increasing access to homeownership, and strengthening low-income communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 31
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 67
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 18.8%; rating input score 19
  • Program expense ratio: 59.9%; rating input score 60
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 70.3%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.39; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 18.8% of revenue deployed · 59.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $442K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $138K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 17 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 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.