Chelsea's Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830322262
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Casper, WY, USA
Phone
3079209808
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Reproductive Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$806,959
Expenses
$310,243
Assets
$1,438,263
Liabilities
$73

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CRISTINA GONZALEZ (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINE LICHTENFELS (DIRECTOR/ED): $34,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Protecting the dignity, equality and reproductive freedom of individuals in Wyoming and the surrounding region by enabling access to abortion and contraceptive care through financial support, education and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Chelseas fund provides funding assistance to enable access to abortion services. The large portion of our abortion funding covers clinic fees for direct abortion services. We make those payments directly to the clinic, having approved them ahead of time and paying after services are provided. In 2024, the number of people we assisted increased significantly to 385. We support Wyoming & Idaho residents regardless of where they receive care. Additionally anyone receiving abortion care in Wyoming may be eligible for our assistance. In addition to funding clinic costs, we provide some funding for associated costs such as travel, hotel, child care as needed and appropriately documented.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 71
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.9%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 95.5%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $258.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.8%; rating input score 97; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 61.6%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.64; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 48.9% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.9% of revenue deployed · 95.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $296K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $34K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.