SAFE Credit Union

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
740504720
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Beaumont, TX, USA
Phone
4098968508
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Credit Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$608,043
Expenses
$660,214
Assets
$11,433,549
Liabilities
$10,377,850

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kay Carmon (Past President)
  • Molly Handy (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Molly Handy (CEO): $66,718 total reported compensation
  • Kay Carmon (Past President): $60,443 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

SAFE Credit Union is a voluntary, cooperative, nonprofit financial institution established for the purposes of encouraging thrift among its members, creating a source of credit at fair and reasonable rates of interest, providing an opportunity for its members to use and control their own money in order to improve their economic and social conditions, and conducting any other business, engaging in any other activity, and providing any other service that may be of benefit to its members subject to the Texas Credit Union Act and Commission rules adopted thereunder.

What it reported doing in 2017

SAFE Credit Union offers share (savings) accounts with advantages to members of all ages. The credit union had 2,080 member-owned accounts as of December 31, 2017. Member savings accounts pay dividends monthly and offer access via multiple avenues such as home banking, the Internet, and phone banking. Special savings accounts designed for Christmas savings encourage the development of consistent savings habits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% 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: 90
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 38
  • 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; 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.32; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.91; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.3%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 34th 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 · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $67K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2017
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.