Christian Chiropractors Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
846027795
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Fort Collins, CO, USA
Phone
9704821404
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$385,344
Expenses
$292,265
Assets
$847,748
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Brian K Scharf DC (President)
  • Mark W Ford DC (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Brian K Scharf DC (President)
  • Mark W Ford DC (Vice President)
  • Theron N Stallings DC (Secretary 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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The association organizes and supports u.s. Chiropractic missionaries in both domestic and foreign posts, supplies inner-city shelters with available chiropractors, provdies professional and spiritual counsel to its members

What it reported doing in 2025

The association sent funding to a pregnancy center in dominican republic and continues to participate in support for their two clinics and furnish funds for a new center in more rural area. The association also purchased 2 ultrasound units for each center which included i-pad units for each ultrasound machine. The association supports a chiropractic missionary doctor in ivoti, brazil where the association is funding for the occupancy for a chiropractic clinic shared with a church in that city. The association supports a medical mission organization that sends multi-disciplinary teams to guatemala, belize and honduras.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 70% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. 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: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.2%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.2%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.9; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.2% of revenue deployed · 59.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $173K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 30 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • 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 grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.