The Shiloh Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262101260
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Auburn, CA, USA
Phone
5308239517
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,941
Expenses
$32,111
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • CHERYL RANKIN (CHAIRMAN)
  • DONALD RANKIN (CHAIRMAN)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the organization is to save as many horses from going to slaughter as shiloh foundation, inc can afford to save. The mission of shiloh foundation, inc is to provide a safe haven for people to take their horse when their financial situation grows dire. To allow them to save face by turning over the horse rather than simply allowing the horse to starve. The mission of shiloh foundation, inc is to educate people about the cost of ownership so they understand how to properly provide for a horse.

What it reported doing in 2016

The shiloh foundation saves as many horses from going to slaughter as they can afford to save. They provide a safe haven for people to take their horse when their financial situation grows dire by taking care of and fedding the horse.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 99
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 98%; rating input score 98

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -34.1%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -26.2% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.3% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $31K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • 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 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.