Maryland Horse Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521427779
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Lisbon, MD, USA
Phone
8446346773
Rating
41
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$345,233
Expenses
$370,196
Assets
$152,444
Liabilities
$55,153

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIMBERLY EGAN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • NEIL AGATE (PAST PRESIDE)
  • KATHY BLANCHE (BOARD MEMBER)
  • DR AMY BURK (BOARD MAMBER)

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 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Md horse council seeks to unify, inform, and represent marylands diverse horse community. As the industrys state legislative representative and trade association, mhc protects and promotes the horse industry by providing a united voice in the Maryland state legislature and state agencies, by interacting with the media and the general public, and by keeping its members informed on issues that affect them and their horses.

What it reported doing in 2022

Maryland horse council (mhc) seeks to unify, inform, and represent marylands diverse horse community. As the industrys state legislative representative and trade association, mhc protects and promotes the horse industry by providing a united voice in the Maryland state legislature and state agencies, by interacting with the media and the general public, and by keeping its members informed on issues that affect them and their horses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 88% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.2%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -30.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2018 to 2022
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.