Credit Unions in the State of Washington Tapco Credit Union

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
910176216
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Tacoma, WA, USA
Phone
2536203241
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$42,381,586
Expenses
$35,150,569
Assets
$697,602,234
Liabilities
$632,201,118

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Justin Martin (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Justin Martin (CEO): $689,359 total reported compensation
  • William Peters (CXO): $333,721 total reported compensation
  • Sarah Gray (CPIO): $290,347 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We are a financial cooperative committed to improving lives by partnering with families to reach their goals and impacting our community by helping individuals realize their full potential. We value trust and understanding and respect for ourselves and others.

What it reported doing in 2025

We continued to increase member loans significantly. TAPCOs loan portfolio is distributed across many loan types including over 176 million in mortgages and equity loans over 249 million in auto loans and over 102 million in commercial loans. TAPCO Peak Member Rewards Program recognizes members financial relationship with TAPCO and offers better rates and free services. Reward benefits may apply to all family members living in the same household by linking family memberships your high school and college student or other family. We continued to look for ways to better serve our members near where they live and work.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 91% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and 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: 24
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 24.7%; rating input score 25
  • Program expense ratio: 29.7%; rating input score 30
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 1st 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 17.1%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.85; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.91; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.5%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 24.7% of revenue deployed · 29.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $10.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $689K · 26 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $7.6M reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 43 current checks pass · 16 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 24 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 25/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticIndividuals column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Interest column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D other securities reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.