The Royal Oak Foundation

Legal name: The Royal Oak Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237349380
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, US
Phone
212.480.2889
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,891,282
Expenses
$4,193,634
Assets
$12,260,927
Liabilities
$1,170,249

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IAN MURRAY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • IAN MURRAY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $199,471 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH CAIRL (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ADMIN): $102,530 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Royal Oak Foundation supports the National Trust of England, Wales & Northern Ireland through fundraising, membership, and educational programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Membership: public relations program to make the general public aware of and experience the historic and natural spaces in england, wales and northern ireland. Free entry to over 350 properties of the national trust of england, wales and northern ireland and over 100 properties belonging to the national trust for scotland, and reduced admission price for u.s. Lectures and tours.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 68% of its reported program spending out as 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: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.3%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.92; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.2%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 5 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 82.3% of revenue deployed · 81.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $199K · 21 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.