American Saddlebred Registry Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
610469263
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Lexington, KY, USA
Phone
8592592742
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$829,502
Expenses
$798,608
Assets
$1,000,940
Liabilities
$374,495

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sandra Currier (Director & President)
  • Jenny Taylor (Director & Vice-President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lisa Duncan (Registrar): $67,590 total reported compensation
  • Katriona Adams (Interim Registrar): $9,538 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the American Saddlebred Registry, Inc. is to establish, maintain and publish a register of American Saddlebred horses. American Saddlebred Registry, Inc shall guarantee the purity of the the breed through establishment, maintenance and publication of an accurate register for the recording of pedigrees and the transfers of ownership of the American Saddlebred horse.

What it reported doing in 2020

Register American Saddlebred horses, maintain archive of registered American Saddlbred horses and related transfers of horses. Legislate rules and regulations for participants and breed issues. Guard purity of the breed and develop high standards for the breeding of the American Saddlebred. Regulate all matters pertaining to the breeding and improvement of the American Saddlebred breed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 92.1%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 3.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.25; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.8% of revenue deployed · 92.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $735K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $68K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.