River City United Credit Union

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
620753194
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Chattanooga, TN, USA
Phone
4237562350
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Credit Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$284,802
Expenses
$291,976
Assets
$10,652,434
Liabilities
$9,565,339

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JUDY W MAYNOR (MANAGER): $70,200 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Credit union - to provide services for approximately 955 members in the form of loans, savings, and other financial services.

What it reported doing in 2013

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

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% 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: 48
  • Growth: 20

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: 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: -2.5%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 36.48; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.9; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -10.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd 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 · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $292K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • 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.

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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.