US Horse Welfare and Rescue Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
815426839
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Avon, CT, USA
Phone
8605934298
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$208,697
Expenses
$185,423
Assets
$106,710
Liabilities
$35,897

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Susan Elizabeth Mitchell (President Executive Director)
  • Bette Holmes (Vice President)
  • Mary Frazier (Vice President of Special Projects)

People named in this filing

  • Lisa Voorvaart (Member Board of Director)
  • Ed Cohen (Member Board of Directors)
  • Steven Mitchell (Member Board of Directors)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote the safety and well-being of Americas equines through Advocacy Education outreach supportive programs and Rescue while fostering the safety and well-being of the human spirit through activities and programs as our Rescue Horses Rescue Humans in need.

What it reported doing in 2025

US Horse Welfare & Rescue provided equine-assisted learning and supportive programming for youth and individuals experiencing emotional cognitive social and life challenges. Programs used structured interaction with rescued horses to promote confidence communication relationship-building life skills and personal growth.

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 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: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.1%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 62.6%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.2%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.1% of revenue deployed · 62.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $152K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 1 filing year from 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 55/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.