Pacific Mountain Workforce Development Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
912165746
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Olympia, WA, USA
Phone
3605155134
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Personal Social Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,102,514
Expenses
$11,107,926
Assets
$2,344,587
Liabilities
$1,429,390

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • William Westmoreland (Chief Executive Officer)
  • John Traugott (WWA Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • William Westmoreland (Chief Executive Officer): $202,537 total reported compensation
  • Wilford Yeager (Chief Finance Officer): $160,788 total reported compensation
  • John Traugott (WWA Executive Director): $140,302 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

PacMtn develops and implements the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act in Grays Harbor, Lewis, Mason, Pacific and Thurston Counties. This involves employment and training services for job seekers, provides 'one-stop' services at WorkSource offices and job referrals for employers.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Community Reinvestment EcSA Career Business Services and Subsidized Training Program. Provided employer engagement, business navigation, workforce training, and subsidized employment opportunities through Washington State Department of Commerce Community Reinvestment funding and the Economic Security for All (EcSA) initiative. Services supported businesses and job seekers through recruitment assistance, workforce partnerships, and training opportunities, with a focus on underserved and BIPOC-owned businesses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 96% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 70% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.1%; rating input score 98; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: -0%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.61; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.8% of revenue deployed · 87.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $9.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $203K · 31 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 33 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 27 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.