Camden County Bar Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222705437
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Cherry Hill, NJ, USA
Phone
8564820620
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$171,016
Expenses
$82,795
Assets
$597,407
Liabilities
$25,145

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RACHAEL B BREKKE (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVEN SALINGER (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • RACHAEL B BREKKE (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVEN SALINGER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • STEPHANIE J ZANE (TREASURER)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The legal profession is about helping people. The camden county bar foundation (ccbf) was created in 1986 to further that ambition. Among the ways the ccbf aims to fulfill its mission may include: developing and supporting community service programs intended to address existing needs; promote the legal profession within the community served by camden county lawyers; foster a greater understanding of and appreciation for the legal system; to incorporate the programs developed by the young lawyer committee of the camden county bar association into the foundation's mission of giving.

What it reported doing in 2024

To help those less fortunate, as well as foster a greater understanding of our legal system, by conducting holiday parties and picnics for underprivileged children, providing scholarships for area high school and law school students, and conducting community events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.6%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 51.6%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.22; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.6% of revenue deployed · 67.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $56K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.