Ncha Charities Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
751796627
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fort Worth, TX, USA
Phone
8172446188
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development - Agricultural

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$896,260
Expenses
$736,372
Assets
$6,486,326
Liabilities
$1,182,031

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Jay Winborn (IMM Past Pres): $496,721 total reported compensation
  • DENISE WILLIAMS (Treasurer): $156,627 total reported compensation
  • JULIA BUSWOLD (Executive Dir.): $147,339 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The NCHA Charities Foundation is organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes as a supporting organization to the National Cutting Horse Association; and is organized and operated to encourage, promote and develop the Cutting Horse as a highly unique and exceptional equine athlete. The Foundation supportS and benefitS NCHA by maintaining scholarship funds, providing crisis funding, developing educational and animal welfare and research programs, and developing programs designed to honor the legendary people and great horses that have shaped our industry and to preserve and tell the stories of the great horses and horsewomen and horsemen of the past to future generations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Horse and Animal Welfare and Research-The Horse and Animal Welfare and Research Committee shall be responsible for the overall health and welfare of the horses and cattle associated with the sport of cutting through the establishment of guidelines for care and monitoring the success of the programs. Through grants, the Foundation will charter research studies with Universities performing a wide range of research related to the health, welfare, and utility of the horse and health and safety of cattle used for competition.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% 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. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.2%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 51.4%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $203.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 17.8%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.81; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.2% of revenue deployed · 51.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $378K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $497K · 9 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.