The Shane Center
Legal name: The Shane Center for Therapeutic Horsemanship Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 311389943
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Centerburg, OH, US
- Phone
- 740-625-9324
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Specialized Education Institutions
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $252,632
- Expenses
- $259,442
- Assets
- $161,122
- Liabilities
- $697
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOEL B SANCHEZ (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT)
- TOM SHOVELTON (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
- KAREN M SANCHEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KAREN M SANCHEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $63,540 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Transforming Lives, One Ride at a Time!
What it reported doing in 2024
Therapeutic horseback riding: our flagship program uses the medically-acknowledged benefits of riding a horse and provides a fun approach to improving the physical, emotional, and cognitive well-being of our participants. Riding a horse helps take our clients beyond the confines of their disabilities. Students use their abilities to learn the actual skills involved in riding a horse. All classes are taught by certified therapeutic riding instructors. Horsin' around: designed for independent riders with special needs, as well as typical beginner and intermediate youth and adults. Lessons focus on learning natural horsemanship methods both on the ground and in the saddle. Classes emphasize learning to ride and focus on enabling students to be well rounded equestrians.stablemates: is a volunteer program for people ages 9 and up who want to learn how to help care for the shane center's horses and facilities.
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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 83
- Sustainability: 32
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 75.8%; rating input score 76
- Program expense ratio: 72.5%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
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: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 24th 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: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: -2.7%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.62; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 24.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 75.8% of revenue deployed · 72.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $188K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $64K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.