Brooke USA Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
331173163
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Lexington, KY, USA
Phone
8592960037
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,666,636
Expenses
$1,464,270
Assets
$2,260,928
Liabilities
$628,585

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EMILY MARQUEZ-DULIN (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • EMILY MARQUEZ-DULIN (CEO): $168,036 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 organization was established to support sustainable equine welfare programs across asia, africa, the middle east and the americas through fundraising and stewarding donations to the areas of greatest need.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 70% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.9%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 50.9%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 44th 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; 64th 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: Fail
    • 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: 12.1%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.54; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.5%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45.9% of revenue deployed · 50.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $746K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $168K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.