Friends of the Equestrian Bridge
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 934823536
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2023–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Burbank, CA, USA
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $62,606
- Expenses
- $54,287
- Assets
- $8,319
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DARCY CONKLE (CEO)
People named in this filing
- DARCY CONKLE (CEO)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
1) promote the welfare of the residents and equestrians that utilize the equestrian facilities located in the rancho neighborhoods of the city of burbank, city of glendale and city of los angeles by advocating environmentally responsible and legally compliant projects. 2) encourage and promote those policies and programs which will reduce environmental harm to the residents and equestrians who either live in the rancho neighborhoods of the above named cities and/or utilize equestrian facilities and ensure zoning compliance. 3) encourage cooperation among all residents and equestrians that live in or utilize the facilities in the above mentioned neighborhoods. 4)educate appropriate governmental bodies concerning changes in existing or proposed laws affecting the above mentioned neighborhood. 5) protect and ensure safe and continuous access to the historic mariposa equestrian bridge.
What it reported doing in 2024
Promote the welfare of the residents and equestrians that utilize the equestrian facilities located in the rancho neighborhoods of the city of burbank, city of glendale and city of los angeles.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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: 82
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 13.3%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 200% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 200% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.