Marine Credit Union Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261564606
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2013
Location
La Crosse, WI, USA
Phone
6087911306
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$658,244
Expenses
$462,911
Assets
$1,314,209
Liabilities
$18,789

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANNE SNOW (PRESIDENT)
  • DARRICK WEEKS (DIRECTOR/MCU PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • KEN KING (PRESIDENT (THRU 02/2024))
  • QUINN DEVLIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 03/2024))
  • CAITLIN WILSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DARRICK WEEKS (DIRECTOR/MCU PRESIDENT & CEO): $659,455 total reported compensation
  • JOUMANA MCDAD (SECRETARY/MCU CHIEF EXPERIENCE OFF.): $355,822 total reported compensation
  • CAITLIN WILSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $169,541 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mcu foundation was founded to make a positive difference in the communities served by mcu through charitable donations and initiatives that increase financial literacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

The mission of the marine credit union foundation is to provide charitable contributions and increase financial literacy to improve the quality of life for individuals living in the communities served by marine credit union.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 67% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - Program spending has grown recently and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.9%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 53.5%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 21.9%; rating input score 22; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th 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: 29.7%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.84; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.9% of revenue deployed · 53.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $248K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $659K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.