Urbana Postal Credit Union

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
370560695
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Urbana, IL, USA
Phone
2173670653
Rating
41
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Credit Unions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$47,865
Expenses
$88,157
Assets
$860,602
Liabilities
$763,150

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • RANDALL G MATTHEWS (TREASURER/MANAGER): $14,350 total reported compensation
  • CHARLES DUBSON (VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD & ASST. MGR.): $3,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To assist our members in the management of their financial well-being by providing loans, savings accounts and other financial institution services in a friendly and professional manner.

What it reported doing in 2017

Provided free fax and copying services to 322 members

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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. 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: 53
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 40

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: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -84.2%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.76; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.89; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.2%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 11 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $14K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 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.

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.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.