Combat Campus Antisemitism Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 934310535
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New York, NY, USA
- Phone
- 9733434935
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Civil Rights
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $766,281
- Expenses
- $813,130
- Assets
- $31,220
- Liabilities
- $22,908
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRUCE NAGEL (PRESIDENT, SECRETARY)
People named in this filing
- BRUCE NAGEL (PRESIDENT, SECRETARY)
- DEVA ROBERTS (TREASURER)
- DANIEL BENSON (DIRECTOR)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The organization was formed to combat - through litigation under federal, state and local civil rights laws and other measures - increasingly rampant antisemitism on our country's leading university campuses and at other institutions.
What it reported doing in 2024
During 2024, ccaf contributed to prosecuting lawsuits brought by jewish students against New York university, the university of Pennsylvania, harvard university, columbia university, and barnard college in federal courts, which alleged that the universities have tolerated and enabled egregiously hostile antisemitic education environments, including pervasive acts of hatred, discrimination, harassment and intimidation. In the complaints, the students sought injunctive relief to compel the universities to remedy their civil rights violations as well as monetary damages. In 2024, the plaintiffs in the nyu action settled with that university, with nyu committing to groundbreaking measures to address antisemitism that serve as a framework for other universities to correct their failings. Also in 2024, the plaintiffs in the harvard action defeated harvard's motion to dismiss their complaint, with the court ruling that the complaint documents harvard's failure to address an eruption of antisemitism on campus.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.1%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 79.2%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -6.1%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.73; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -80.6% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -68.8% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -55.4% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 84.1% of revenue deployed · 79.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $644K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $636K reported
- Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.