South Carolina Community Loan Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010793507
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8439737285
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing, Shelter N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,915,848
Expenses
$4,240,305
Assets
$49,607,336
Liabilities
$33,987,519

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nathaniel Barber (CEO)
  • Deborah MCKETTY (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nathaniel Barber (CEO): $165,000 total reported compensation
  • Deborah MCKETTY (President): $160,000 total reported compensation
  • Nancy Leon (CFO): $146,858 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

South Carolina community loan fund (scclf) is a u.s. Treasury certified community development financial institution (cdfi) whose mission is to advance equitable access to capital by providing loans, technical assistance, and advocacy for affordable housing, health food, community facilities, and community business enterprises to create thriving, prosperous, economically resilient communities for all south carolinains.

What it reported doing in 2024

Loan Program and Other Related Fees: Loan application fees are earned and recorded as revenue at a point in time when the loan application is completed by the applicant with all required documentation and accepted by the Organization. Loan origination fees are earned on loan closings and recorded as revenue at a point in time when the performance obligation is met, i.e., when the loan closes and funds are loaned to the customer.The Organization requires a signed promissory note with all borrowers which constitutes a contract between the Organization and the customer, states the loan terms, and lays out the obligations of the Organization and the borrower. Each individual loan receivable was analyzed separately and has its own specific terms. Under ASC 606, late fee income related to these loan receivables are recognized as revenue at a point in time when the loan payments are due and the customer has not paid these payments per the terms in the signed contract. As the due date passes for the loan payments and the amounts go unpaid, the Organization will recognize late fees for the loan funds at the respective terms per the individual loandocument. The Organization had a home buyer assistance (HBA) program for several years as discussed earlier. Under this program, the Organization was eligible for a portion of sales proceeds for a property that they have previously provided HBA funds on to assist the home buyer. At the time of the original advance of HBA funds, a signed contract was entered into with all customers that received funds from the Organization which stated the terms of repayment of a portion of the net sales proceeds if the property was sold before 20 years from the date of the funds, which constitutes a contract between the Organization and the customer. Under these contracts, the Organization is considered to meet its performance obligation at a point in time when the respective property is determined to be sold in less than 20 years from the advance of funds by the Organization and the sale of the property to a third party has been closed. Under ASC 606, the amount of the revenue is determined at the time of the sale per the closing statement and recognizesrevenue at that point in time.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.1%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 68.6%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 38.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.7; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.69; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.1% of revenue deployed · 68.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 23 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.