Mahr Nfp Mid America Horse Rescue

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263246866
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Columbia, IL, USA
Phone
3143022216
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$161,967
Expenses
$50,131
Assets
$156,731
Liabilities
$295,306

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • TOM SCHLAKER (MEMBER)
  • LISA WOOD GEORGE (MEMBER)
  • PAM WEBSTER (MEMBER)

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Horse rescue for physically and psychologically abused, neglected, troubled, or abandoned equines and to provide rehabilitation retraining and placment, where indicated, or retirement. To train horses to interact on a one to one basis with humans needing touch therapy or riding therapy.

What it reported doing in 2014

To provide a program of horse rescue for physically or psychologically abused, neglected, troubled, or abandoned equines and to provide rehabilitation retraining, and placement, where indicated or retirement within an environment of physical well-being and trust.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.3%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 97.8%; rating input score 98

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 69%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.13; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.88; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.9% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 37.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 57.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.3% of revenue deployed · 97.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $49K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.