Pacific County Tourism Bureau

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911298641
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Seaview, WA, USA
Phone
3606422400
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$690,143
Expenses
$679,132
Assets
$187,535
Liabilities
$1,175

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MADELINE MATSON (PRESIDENT)
  • MARK NEWSOM (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOSHUA PHILLIPS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOSHUA PHILLIPS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $72,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote tourism in pacific county, Washington, and work with other tourist-related organizations in promotion of local tourism.

What it reported doing in 2025

Washington's evergreen coast serves as the official destination marketing organization (dmo) for pacific county, Washington. The organization promotes sustainable tourism through strategic marketing, advertising, public relations, website management, visitor information, content creation, and partnership development. Marketing efforts encourage overnight visitation, extend visitor stays, increase visitor spending, and support local businesses throughout the county. During the year, the organization executed regional and national advertising campaigns, maintained the destination website and digital visitor resources, developed print and digital promotional materials, supported major events and tourism initiatives, collaborated with local businesses and community partners, and generated media coverage highlighting pacific county as a year-round travel destination.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.2%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 83.5%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 1.6%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.28; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 34.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.2% of revenue deployed · 83.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $567K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.