Camellia Waldorf School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680133583
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9164275022
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Kindergarten, Preschool, Nursery School, Early Admissions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,658,562
Expenses
$2,636,014
Assets
$2,885,216
Liabilities
$1,930,746

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARAH HUGGINS (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOSHUA WILSON (SCHOOL DIRECTOR): $88,786 total reported compensation
  • SARAH CASEBEER (Director): $58,723 total reported compensation
  • Olga Morozova (Director): $57,181 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Camellia waldorf school educates by honoring childhood, appreciating the individuality of each student, and instilling a sense of moral and ethical responibility while building capacities and encouraging clear and creative thinking.

What it reported doing in 2024

The 2024-2025 school year was filled with vibrant community engagement and generous support for our school. We began with a strong Annual Fund Drive in the fall, and were energized by a $5,000 participation challenge from a longtime friend of the school. Families encouraged one another, grandparents joined in, and several households secured employer-matching gifts. Right before winter break, we reached 100% participation and raised over $64,000, providing vital support for our classrooms, faculty, and festival life. Last fall also brought meaningful grant support. Camellia received an $8,000 grant from the Waldorf Schools Fund to enhance the outdoor classroom area near the lower grades with a new shade structure, wooden tables, and planters. We were also awarded a $50,000 grant from the WoodNext Foundation to support our Tuition Assistance Program, helping us maintain a socioeconomically diverse and inclusive school community. In the spring, we gathered for our annual dinner auction and only fundraising event of the year. The event welcomed more than 150 guests and raised just under $70,000, including $28,000 for our annual Fund-a-Need project, which completed our campus exterior painting initiative and brought a newly designed upper-grades play structure dreamed up by students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.8%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 74%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 9th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.67; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.8% of revenue deployed · 74% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 15 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $89K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.