Ride with Pride Therapeutic Horsemanship Inc Dba Ride with Pride
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 800561182
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2013
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2013
- Location
- Chatsworth, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8188858138
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $22,099
- Expenses
- $54,574
- Assets
- $23,045
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SUZANNE JAMES KING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- SUZANNE JAMES KING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- GLENYS NORWOOD (TREASURER & DIRECTOR)
- MARY MURPHY (SECRETARY & 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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Ride with pride's primary exempt purpose is to give recreational and therapeutic horseback riding lessons to persons with disabilities. Children and adults with cognitive, physical and emotional disabilities attend either therapeutic riding lessons, or equine facilitated psychotherapy sessions, with certified instructors, licensed therapists and horse specialists. All our volunteers are trained on-site and have been mentored by experienced volunteers.
What it reported doing in 2013
Ride with pride began giving lessons in june 2010. Our fourth calendar year was rewarding but challenging. We moved facilities two times during this year. However, in spite of this we gave a total of 304 therapeutic riding lessons to 15 physically or mentally disabled children and adults. 42 volunteers donated over 3000 hours. Therapeutic riding lessons are subsidized by ride with pride for all individuals, and for those indentified as eligible, scholarships are given. About 15% of our riders received partial scholarships.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 98
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 26
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 96%; rating input score 96
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -147%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $52K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.