National Association for Campus Activities Educational Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570735535
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Columbia, SC, USA
Phone
8037326222
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$84,251
Expenses
$123,910
Assets
$892,783
Liabilities
$25,858

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMESON ROOT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMESON ROOT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $175,044 total reported compensation
  • DAPHNE GIVENS (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $115,877 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The naca foundation was established in 1982 to develop and provide educational programs and services for college and university students, professional staff and others who work in the field of student activities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Naca foundation as a valuable community asset has made it possible to award numerous scholarships, research grants, and professional development opportunities to members of the campus activities community. The foundation currently offers a variety of scholarships to assist undergraduate students, professional staff, and associate members in pursuing educational interests and career development.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -47.1%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.21; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $100K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 12 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.