Monterey Horse Park

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770575982
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Spreckels, CA, USA
Phone
5104828263
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Garden Club, Horticultural Program

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$0
Expenses
$4,703
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAWN POSTON (President)

People named in this filing

  • SARAH CLIFFORD (Director)
  • TIM G EASTMAN (Director)
  • BRIAN BOUDREAU (Director)

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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Develop equestrian center at fort bragg that will provide public recreation and economic benefits for the community now and for the future

What it reported doing in 2018

Engineering and land use surveys and architectural presentations for the fort ord land reuse authority

Operating model

Revenue model
No positive adjusted resources. The filing reports no positive adjusted operating resources.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -27.4% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 12 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2015 to 2018
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.