Havaya Summer Programs
Legal name: Jewish Reconstructionist Camping Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 364478803
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Wyncote, PA, USA
- Phone
- 8332267428
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Camps
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,947,652
- Expenses
- $3,253,250
- Assets
- $6,198,986
- Liabilities
- $3,253,407
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARLA IZBICKY (PRESIDENT)
- JILLIAN BEST ADLER (VICE PRESIDENT)
- ANDY KAPLAN (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- MARLA IZBICKY (PRESIDENT)
- JILLIAN BEST ADLER (VICE PRESIDENT)
- BRIAN PETERS (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Camp Havaya (formerly Camp JRF) is an incredibly diverse and welcoming community where kids explore Judaism in their own ways and become the best versions of themselves. With the support of InterfaithFamily, we train our staff in how to be cognizant about the ways in which campers from interfaith families may experience camp and how, in addition to supporting them, we must be equally aware of their parents’ varying experiences and expectations. LGBTQ Over the course of many years, we have worked closely with Keshet and with Congregation Beit Simchat Torah, the LGBTQ synagogue in New York City, to ensure that our programs and communities are welcoming and inclusive of campers and staff of all sexual orientations and gender identities, as well as those from LGBTQ families.
What it reported doing in 2024
Provide summer programs where children explore judaism in their own ways and become the best versions of themselves.
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 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 66
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 65.8%; rating input score 66
- Program expense ratio: 79.9%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 87.5%; rating input score 87; 24th 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: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 17.6%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.91; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 65.8% of revenue deployed · 79.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.