Wings and Hooves Therapeutic Riding

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270329416
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
East Kingston, NH, USA
Phone
6036423722
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$52,275
Expenses
$53,811
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ETURN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ETURN (PRESIDENT)
  • KATHLEEN IVES (VICE PRESIDE)
  • KATELYN CARROLL (SECRETARY)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Wings and hooves therapeutic riding, inc. Is dedicated to enhancing the lives of individuals with physical, emotional and developmental disabilities by building confidence through equine-assisted activities and partnerships.

What it reported doing in 2015

Our therapeutic riding instruction program incorporates equine oriented activities and mounted horseback riding that contribute positively to the physical, behavioral, cognitive, emotional and social growth of our participants. The benefits of this program are paramount; increased strength, balance, flexibility and coordination, increased circulation and breathing, sharpened attention span and focus as well as greater self- confidence and social skills, to name a few.

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. 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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.3%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 49.8%; rating input score 50

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.9%; rating input score 39; 39th 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 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -61.8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -30.6% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.3% of revenue deployed · 49.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $27K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • 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.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.