Vintage Cutting Horse Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680145581
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Petaluma, CA, USA
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$64,809
Expenses
$60,103
Assets
$58,147

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAYLEE THOMPSON (Vice President)
  • ALLIE HARTMAN (President)

People named in this filing

  • CECELIA BROWN (Secretary)
  • KAYLEE THOMPSON (Vice President)
  • ALLIE HARTMAN (President)

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

Overview

Mission

The specific and primary purposes of the Association are to encourage the development of, and public interest in, cutting horses through promotion, presentation, and sponsorship of cutting horse competitions, educational clinics, and other events.

What it reported doing in 2025

Entry fees/point club/clinics - promotes riding & ownership among members, as well as providing professional training at a low cost

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.7%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.3%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 47; 47th 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: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.7% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $60K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.