Georgia Equine Rescue League Ltd

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582080606
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Bethlehem, GA, USA
Phone
7708670760
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$102,536
Expenses
$101,229
Assets
$74,467
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATTY LIVINGSTON (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • PATTY LIVINGSTON (PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To help end neglect and abuse equines

What it reported doing in 2020

To help0 end neglect and abuse equines

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 91
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.4%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 62.2%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $63.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 11th 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: 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: 1.3%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.4% of revenue deployed · 62.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $63K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.