Valley First Credit Union
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 941439553
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Modesto, CA, US
- Phone
- (209) 549-8500
- Rating confidence
- Limited
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $63,347,544
- Expenses
- $58,535,460
- Assets
- $1,027,273,852
- Liabilities
- $936,329,209
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KATHRYN DAVIS (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- KATHRYN DAVIS (PRESIDENT & CEO): $776,000 total reported compensation
- PAUL EMANUELS (FORMER VP, LENDING): $338,482 total reported compensation
- ANDREA BROOKS (CHIEF RISK OFFICER): $292,708 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Working together to provide superior service for our members and community
What it reported doing in 2024
As a state-chartered credit union, valley first credit union (the credit union) provides loans to members at reduced interest rates as compared to competitors. In general, the credit criteria are less stringent, loan rates are lower, and a higher level of loan coverage is provided. As of 12/31/2024, the credit union had $716.8 million in outstanding loan balances and more than 78,900 members. As a community development financial institution and a low income designated credit union, the credit union is charged with generating economic growth and opportunity in economically disadvantaged communities with programs that inject new sources of capital into neighborhoods that lack access to financing. In 2024, the credit union deployed $166 million in consumer and business capital to low income communities throughout California's central valley. 73.4% of sba funding went to diverse business enterprises and the credit union generated $7.2 million in economic development as a result of its lending efforts. Members facing hardships were supported with $1,533,271 in loan deferrals and $764,500 in loan modifications.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 84% 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
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 62
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- 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: 56.1%; rating input score 56; 11th 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; 77th 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: 7.6%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.55; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.91; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $776K · 23 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.9M reported
- Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- 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: 23 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.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 56/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.