Equamore Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931053110
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Ashland, OR, USA
Phone
5414825550
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$142,246
Expenses
$202,075
Assets
$32,772
Liabilities
$207,203

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

An animal welfare organization supported entirely by donations and volunteers, devoted to the care and placement of abused, neglected, unwanted, abandoned, and aged horses who have no alternative care.

What it reported doing in 2011

Animal welfare

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -42.1%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 6.32; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.6%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 26.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $202K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2010 to 2011
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.