Project Comeback

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821727799
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Official website data refreshed
Jun 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Holliston, MA, US
Phone
774-464-8979
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Training, Behavior

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$362,164
Expenses
$269,303
Assets
$314,018
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KELLY YANTES WARD (PRESIDENT)
  • LINDSAY TUCKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KELLY YANTES WARD (PRESIDENT): $42,600 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Project Comeback provides lifelong care to the most unwanted, unadoptable, and overlooked horses. Through veteran partnerships, we create a space where both horse and human can heal together first, fostering trust, respect, and interactions rooted in choice. Our mission is not to re-educate and then re-home, but to restore dignity, offer refuge, and build meaningful connections based on mutual consent and understanding.

Project Comeback provides lifelong care for unwanted, unadoptable, and overlooked horses. Its core model pairs veterans with horses to support healing through mindful observation and positive, non-forced, consensual interactions, delivered through immersive North and South location experiences. The organization also offers a “Sponsor a horse” giving option that helps cover ongoing herd care such as hay, medical needs, shelter, and daily upkeep.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 49
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.2%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 98.4%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 25.6%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.17; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.8%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 41.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 73.2% of revenue deployed · 98.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $265K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $43K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.