Camp Cedar Cliff
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 743160286
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Jul 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Asheville, NC, USA
- Phone
- 828-450-3331
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,641,952
- Expenses
- $2,761,707
- Assets
- $3,450,490
- Liabilities
- $238,890
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Timothy Brady (President/CEO/Camp Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Timothy Brady (President/CEO/Camp Director): $164,558 total reported compensation
- Hayley Duerstock (CFO): $105,245 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To manage and operate a camp which provides a quality Christian camp experience to young people through the integration of recreational, educational, spiritual, and religious activities which is founded upon Christian scholarship and learning and the gospel and teachings of Jesus Christ.
What it reported doing in 2025
In 2025, Camp Cedar Cliff hosted over 1700 campers for our 8 weeks of overnight summer camp and 9 weeks day camp programs. Of those, 307 of those campers made a first time decision to accept Christ as their Savior or rededicate their lives to Christ. Campers were introduced to a variety of programs/activities and people that challenged them in new ways to strengthen their faith and deepen their love for the Lord.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 69% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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.
- 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 93.6%; rating input score 94
- Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -4.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.25; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 93.6% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 8 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.