Salem Saddle Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930273168
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salem, OR, USA
Phone
5033781463
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$124,184
Expenses
$148,331
Assets
$636,566
Liabilities
$42,553

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Casey Bergerson (Vice President)
  • Ron Bascue (President)

People named in this filing

  • Teri Thomson (Director)
  • Sue Benjamin (Director)
  • Brian Watson (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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide a place where horse minded people can gather in all kinds of weather to train and exercise their horse. To learn methods of training and care of the horses, and to provide a place for members to stall their horses.

What it reported doing in 2024

Providing stalls for horses. We have two horse barns with a total of 64 stalls and provide facilities for riding and training. Training events for both horses and horseman, including roping cattle, horse shows to compare horsemanship and areas of improvement. Proceeds of show is contributed to a horse organization that helps handicapped individuals ride a horse. Provide facilities for riding and training horses to members. The enclosed arena is 125 ft by 250 ft. This provides a training space sheltered from the Oregon weather. A club room is provided to members for business meetings, and educational speakers, and social gatherings.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.4%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 43.1%; rating input score 43
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.29; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.4% of revenue deployed · 43.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 20 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.