Clallam County Ecomomic Dev Cncl
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 911167253
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
- Location
- Port Angeles, WA, USA
- Phone
- 3604577793
- Rating
- 64
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,482,208
- Expenses
- $1,366,287
- Assets
- $1,041,917
- Liabilities
- $85,628
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
22 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- COLLEEN MCALEER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- COLLEEN MCALEER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $193,852 total reported compensation
- REBEKAH H MILLER (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $120,391 total reported compensation
- LORIE M FAZIO (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS): $119,391 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Clallam county development council is a not for profit organization that concentrates on enhancing and stabalizing the economic environment in clallam county through business retention, expansion, recruitment and marketing.
What it reported doing in 2024
Recompete - the north olympic peninsula recompete coalition (noprc) pursued and was awarded $35.6 million by the u.s. Department of commerce through the recompete pilot program to reinvigorate the economy on the north olympic peninsula. Seizing a once in a lifetime opportunity, clallam edc spearheaded the effort to form a coalition of government and business leaders that informed the application process. Clallam edc directors supported nearly $80,000 for project management & economic analysis expenses from edc reserves to ensure we had a winning application and we did! Beyond the $80,000 spent initially from our reserves we also received a total of $321,000 from the states federal matching program (sffi) and the federal strategic development grant to support phase i of the program.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 92% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 53
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 79
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 57.6%; rating input score 58
- Program expense ratio: 61.7%; rating input score 62
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 7.8%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 31.7%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 24.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 20.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 57.6% of revenue deployed · 61.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $843K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $194K · 22 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $276K reported
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.