Tillamook Coast Visitors Assoc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832873535
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Tillamook, OR, USA
Phone
5038423672
Rating
37
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,895,690
Expenses
$2,579,679
Assets
$2,267,115
Liabilities
$11,080

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • NANNETTE G DEVLIN (EXECUTIVE DI): $176,085 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Improving conditions for tourism and tourism-serving businesses in tillamook county by developing, managing, and promoting the tillamook coast as a destination for visitors.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tillamook coast visitors association strategically invested funds to improve the conditions of tourism and tourism-serving businesses. The tourism and hospitality industry was adversely affected by the covid-19 pandemic. Tcva was able to assist local businesses by producing consistent messaging and collateral, encouraging public safety through wearing masks and social distancing. Tcva is the recognized leader in destination management and regional coordination for sustainable tourism, community partnership, and stewardship messaging. Successful programs and events such as 'the north coast food trail' promote economic growth for farmers and producers on the tillamook coast. Tcva also implemented a 200,000 marketing renewal grant for tourism-related businesses. The cohort model requires participants to collaborate and share project initiatives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 96% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

REVIEW - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.9%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 40.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $176K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.