Rural Consumer Services Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 561553250
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Shallotte, NC, USA
- Phone
- 9107544391
- Rating
- 57
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Rural Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $306,710
- Expenses
- $177,037
- Assets
- $2,428,527
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOSHUA WINSLOW (CEO/GENERAL)
- PERRY SELLERS (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JOSHUA WINSLOW (CEO/GENERAL): $684,409 total reported compensation
- LISA FITZGERALD (VP FINANCE): $464,914 total reported compensation
- DAVID L GORE (DIRECTOR): $72,478 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission is to promote new business development, business expansion, and business retention in brunswick and columbus counties; to partner with state and local authorities and organizations to afford the tools required to move more citizens and businesses into the technology age and to long-term economic prosperity; to organize economic development activities with the goal of making the activities financially self-sustaining over time; and ultimately to help create and retain jobs for the citizens of our area.
What it reported doing in 2025
Rental of a secure telecommunications room and rack space to a commercial telecommunications company that provides an internet "point of presence" that is used by local government facilities, providing a low-cost alternative for the citizens of brunswick county.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 44
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 77
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 31%; rating input score 31
- Program expense ratio: 79.1%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 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: 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 42.3%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.72; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 169.2%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -16.4% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -13% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 31% of revenue deployed · 79.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $140K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $684K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.