California Family Life Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953699116
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hemet, CA, USA
Phone
9517656955
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Group Homes

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,826,027
Expenses
$13,035,863
Assets
$6,193,804
Liabilities
$1,617,949

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY JO RAMIREZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY JO RAMIREZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $170,344 total reported compensation
  • PAM ELIE-DUNKLEY (RFA/ADOPTIONS DIRECTOR): $150,604 total reported compensation
  • PETER STEPHENS (MENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR): $134,162 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

California family life center's mission is to provide safety, comfort and healing to children suffering abuse and abandonment; to teach love and trust; to instill self-esteem, values and hope for the future - and in so doing, assist children trapped in hopelessness and despair become compassionate and contributing members of the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Youth employment training: cflc's youth opportunity centers in hemet, lake elsinore, and rubidoux help identify career aptitudes for young job seekers ages 16-21, teach interview skills and customer service, arrange paid internships and employment in the business community and connect them to higher education. An experienced youth development specialist tracks each participant's progress, guiding, encouraging, coaching (and sometimes parenting) them for a full two years. The centers enrolled 1067 at risk youth in job training and education programs during the year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 87% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 86.5%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5,058.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.7%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.6% of revenue deployed · 86.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $11.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $170K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.