Horse Head Theatre Co

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270163176
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
8327860944
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Theater

Reported finances

Revenue
$55,254
Expenses
$57,472
Assets
$16,640
Liabilities
$-5,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Joseph Machado (President of the Board of Directors)
  • Ariel Jones (Vice President of the Board of Directors)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jacey Little (Artistic Director): $11,278 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Horse Head Theatre Co's mission is to re energize Houston audiences with theatrically designed experiences using nontraditional methods and local talent. Horse Head utilizes found and site specific spaces, producing events outside of traditional arts venues that further enhance our storytelling. HH is committed to producing new and innovative works and is known for our theatrical experiences, featuring explosive design elements, audience interaction, immersive environments and pre show ritual or ceremonial activities. Our vision is to inspire empathy and engagement. We only produce visceral art with a purpose. Let us tell you a story.

What it reported doing in 2016

HORSE HEAD THEATRE CO. PRESENTS THE REGIONAL PREMIERE OF THE JUDGMENT OF FOOLS BY BERNARDO CUBRIA, DIRECTED BY PHILIP HAYS. OCTOBER 25, NOVEMBER 12, 2016 AT REC ROOM, 100 JACKSON ST, HOUSTON, TX 77002. Our crack squad of postmodern jesters needs your help. We have seen your Tweets. We have watched your Vlog. We even read that Yelp review you wrote that one time. And now we need you to put your well honed, significantly above average snap judgment skills to work. The world seems pretty crazy right now and we are all trying to make sense of it. So come help us figure it out. Have a laugh, blow off some steam, knock back a few and tell us what you really think. The Judgment of Fools is a debauched vaudevillian social experiment. A comedy like no other. Building on the time honored tradition of bouffon, which is fancy French clown lingo for talking back to the audience, spectators will be polled, prodded and poked as a convocation of Fools ask them to flex their judging muscles. Like the court jesters of olde, but in Converse All Stars, these Fools will descend on Houston to reflect the folly of the world. But they need your help to make sense of it all. They want your thoughts. They want your opinions. They want your emojis, your re tweets, your Likes. You see, the audience is the star of this show. Although The Judgment of Fools is mostly scripted, we'd guess 80 percent most nights, these Fools will mine the moments of the show from audience interactions. Have you ever want to talk back to a character, during a show. This is your chance. Have you ever wanted to bust out a real conversation with the person next to you. Do it here. Have you ever wanted to just stop a friggin play in the middle of a scene. Here, you can. Equipped with The Megaphone of Justice, yes, it is a thing, Judgment audiences have the power to literally stop the show. Assuming your fellow audience members agree that the Fools have gone too far. If not, you are out of luck and may console yourself with a free, cheap beer. So, you know, it s that kind of play. Horse Head dares to say, judge not lest ye be fooled.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 67.7%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -58.8% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -37.8% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -52.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.4% of revenue deployed · 67.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $39K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $11K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2015 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.