Cave Research Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
316052842
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cave City, KY, USA
Phone
4796592247
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$289,593
Expenses
$151,368
Assets
$1,730,355
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kayla N Sapkota (President)
  • John T M Lyles (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kayla N Sapkota (President): $2,562 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Facilitate and support research, management, and interpretation of caves and karst resources in the United States and overseas; Promote the long-term conservation of caves and karst ecosystems; Explore, survey, and document all aspects of the underground environment; Assist government agencies and private landowners with management and protection of caves on their land; Educate the public about the importance of caves and karst ecosystems for conservation and water supplies.

What it reported doing in 2024

CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH, MANAGEMENT, AND CARTOGRAPHY: The primary focus of the Foundation is assisting government land managers who are responsible for cave and karst areas. Support includes inventorying caves and karst features, developing management plans to protect these unique resources, constructing protective gates on sensitive caves, performing biological and other inventories in the caves, and systematically mapping the caves. Working agreements are in place with the Mammoth Cave National Park, Carlsbad Caverns NP, Buffalo National River, Mark Twain National Forest, Lava Beds National Monument, Craters of the Moon National Monument, Sequoia-Kings Canyon NP, and others. The Foundation has a pool of over 200 active volunteers who do the actual work under the guidance of the various agency land managers. Over 23,000 hours of volunteer time were donated to the Foundation in 2024-25.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 75%; rating input score 75; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 47.7%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.43; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58% of revenue deployed · 94.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $143K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 39 of 42 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.