Ryerss Farm for Aged Equines

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
236215037
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Pottstown, PA, USA
Phone
6104690533
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,808,078
Expenses
$1,416,845
Assets
$12,357,435
Liabilities
$149,969

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Samuel W M Griffin (President)
  • Peter Giangiulio ESQ (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Samuel W M Griffin (President): $66,300 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ryerss farm for aged equines provides shelter and care for aged and abused horses.

What it reported doing in 2024

Animal welfare - ryerss farm for aged equines provides care and shelter to 77 equines. Ryerss accepts horses over the age of twenty whose owners cannot care for them anymore. In conjunction with various organizations, ryerss also accepts abused horses of any age in situations of abuse and neglect. Care provided includes preventative and emergency health and dental care, normal day-to-day maintenance including feeding and exercise, and opportunities to socialize with other horses and people. In addition to caring for the horses, ryerss provides community outreach by working on a strictly voluntary basis with several technical schools, high schools and organizations for the disabled to provide work experience and training in the areas of horse care and stable maintenance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 64.6%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: 90%; rating input score 90; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 49.5%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.72; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39% of revenue deployed · 64.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $915K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $66K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.