Riding on Angels Wings % Jane Amble

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202254919
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Phone
2184778181
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Equestrian

Reported finances

Revenue
$-33,576
Expenses
$107,452
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BETTE JO SHIPLEY (President & CEO)
  • MICHAEL KAMP (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • BETTE JO SHIPLEY (President & CEO)
  • ERIKA BERG (Secretary)
  • DEBRA MCCLELLAND (Treasurer)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Through the coordinated efforts of qualified therapists, certified instructors, educated volunteers, and specially trained horses, ROAW provides equine assisted therapies and activities of exceptional quality to individuals with physical, mental, emotional, and (or) behavioral disabilities in Fargo-Moorhead and surrounding rural communities.

What it reported doing in 2017

Over the past years ROAW has increased rider numbers, expanded our service area to 9 counties, added a 6 week spring and a 6 week fall session, along with forming collaborations with local colleges to provide training to students and offer internship positions for students interested in working with individuals with disabilities and/or Equine. Our biggest achievement has been the indoor riding arena that became a reality in the fall of 2009.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: -420%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: -12.7% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -27.4% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $107K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2013 to 2017
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.