Pacific County Economic Development Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911238922
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Long Beach, WA, USA
Phone
3608759330
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$401,289
Expenses
$367,084
Assets
$312,468
Liabilities
$3,579

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

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Julie Struck (Vice President)
  • Mark Newsom (Vice President)
  • Jeanne Brooks (President)

People named in this filing

  • Jerry Doyle (Board Member)
  • Jim Sayce (Board Member)
  • Tina Hayes (Board Member)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Pacific County Economic Development Council PCEDC is to support and promote policies and activities which contribute to Pacific County's economic vitality.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization engaged in activities to foster economic development in the Pacific County area and to receive, administer and expend funds for such purpose in compliance with the Revised Code of Washington, Title 24 and other regulations. According to the organizations Amended Bylaws dated 11/03/17 "The purpose of the organization is to define, support and promote policies and activities which contribute to the economic stability and growth of Pacific County. Such activities may include, but shall not be limited to: (a) Assist business establishment, expansion, diversification, and retention. (b) Inform agencies and the public on the attributes of a healthy economy and effective business management. (c) Promote public policies which will encourage and give orderly direction to economic development. (d) Engage collaboratively with other business development organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 78.7%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72% of revenue deployed · 78.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 31 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.