Thurston County Economic Development Cou
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 911183169
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Lacey, WA, USA
- Phone
- 3607546320
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,872,013
- Expenses
- $5,822,485
- Assets
- $1,094,093
- Liabilities
- $686,095
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- HEATHER BURGESS (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
- MALCOLM MILLER (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
- MARK STEEPY (PRESIDENT)
- MICHAEL CADE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MICHAEL CADE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $176,627 total reported compensation
- TIFFANY SCROGGS (PROGRAM MANAGER): $131,129 total reported compensation
- HEIDI MCCUTCHEON (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $130,940 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the the thurston edc is to promote and increase sustainable economic, investment and employment opportunities throughout thurston county that support the livelihood, values of the residents of the county.
What it reported doing in 2024
Apex acceleratorapex accelerator provides comprehensive support to businesses seeking to win government contracts and subcontracts. The one-on-one technical assistance includes bid reviews, marketing assistance, contract performance, small business certifications, and more. Apex accelerators also hosts procurement training classes and seminars, and helps businesses register with the correct databases in order to compete for government contracts. Washington apex accelerator's mission is to increase the number of government contracts awarded to Washington firms so that those firms can grow.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 90% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78.5%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 79.1%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 95.6%; rating input score 96; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 11.4%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 78.5% of revenue deployed · 79.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 28 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 11 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 37/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.