Professional Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship Inernational

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237169769
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Westminster, CO, USA
Phone
3034521212
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Equestrian

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,280,429
Expenses
$3,359,555
Assets
$3,098,776
Liabilities
$949,257

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT CARVER (PRESIDENT)
  • ED MILFORD (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • BRANDAN MONTMINY (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • KATHY ALM (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATHY ALM (CEO): $176,507 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We advance professional equine-assisted services by empowering our members, credentialed professionals, partners and the public through rigorously developed standards, credentials and education that recognize the power of the equine-human relationship.

What it reported doing in 2024

Membership provides a sense of community for the equine-assisted services (eas) professionals and supporters who join path international. Almost 5,000 members around the world help more than 71,000 children and adults with physical, cognitive and emotional challenges as they strive to reach their health and wellness goals. Additionally, path international strides magazine, enews, and website provide valuable information to members and the public.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 61% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 80% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $57.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 18.4%; rating input score 18; 12th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.4%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.