Equitarian Initiative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452922119
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Steamboat Springs, CO, USA
Phone
9709464142
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$538,174
Expenses
$510,527
Assets
$387,533
Liabilities
$25,467

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Annie Henderson-Selle (Executive Director)
  • Stacy Tinkler (Board Vice-President)
  • Judy Batker (Board President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Annie Henderson-Selle (Executive Director): $83,154 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To sustainably improve the health and welfare of working horses, donkeys, mules, and their families around the world.

What it reported doing in 2025

The welfare of working animals is vital to local communities and the global economy, yet there are few resources available to support their health and improve their challenging working conditions. We collaborate with partner NGO's and universities to address working equid welfare worldwide through education and direct aid in our field programs. The animals treated by EI are responsible for enabling subsistence agriculture, tourism, transportation, and both local and global trade and commerce. We harness the expertise of volunteer animal health care professionals including veterinarians, veterinary technicians, farriers, animal scientists, students, educators, and advocates to uplift working equid health worldwide to create a positive, sustainable change for working equids and the communities they serve.

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 91% of its reported program spending out as 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: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.7%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $48.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.1%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27.8% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.7% of revenue deployed · 79.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $404K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $83K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 43 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.