Camphill Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
236421082
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Uwchland, PA, USA
Phone
8455172776
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,190,668
Expenses
$1,218,976
Assets
$16,131,044
Liabilities
$543,553

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN MURPHY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KAREN MURPHY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $124,918 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Camphill foundation (the "foundation") was formed to grow, strengthen, and safeguard the camphill movement in north america through strategic grants and programmatic initiatives that ensure long-term sustainability and flourishing of camphill communities. Camphill is a worldwide movement of vibrant life sharing communities where people with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities strive together to reach full potentials. A majority of the foundation's programmatic revenue is derived from contributions.

What it reported doing in 2024

Camphill foundation fulfills its mission primarily through cash grants to camphill communities. Grants are used for capital projects, infrastructure and strategic development, volunteer recruitment and retention, and general support.

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 41% for direct work, and 59% 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. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 56%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.8%; rating input score 97; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: -2.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.23; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.3% of revenue deployed · 56% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $682K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $125K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 38 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.