Our Lady of Good Hope Credit Union

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
390939059
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Credit Unions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$34,857
Expenses
$37,175
Assets
$951,566
Liabilities
$777,745

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Carol Loehr (Head Teller): $5,129 total reported compensation
  • Thomas J Lieven (ManagerTreasurer): $4,800 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We have deposit, transaction, and investment accounts with 607 members at 12/31/14. During 2014, we opened 9 new deposit, transaction and investment accounts.

What it reported doing in 2014

We have deposit, transaction, and investment accounts with 607 members at 12/31/14. During 2014, we opened 9 new deposit, transaction and investment accounts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% 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: 100
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 0

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; 62nd 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.7%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.6; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.82; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 40th 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 · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $5K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.