Conejo Free Clinic
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 953177953
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8053791918
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Ambulatory Health Center, Community Clinic
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $873,414
- Expenses
- $695,614
- Assets
- $1,422,912
- Liabilities
- $3,845
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SARAH D HAWKINS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- ERICK D KNIGHT (PRIOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- JOANNA SEIFERT (President)
- SARAH WILLIAMS (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- SARAH D HAWKINS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $103,317 total reported compensation
- ERICK D KNIGHT (PRIOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $26,250 total reported compensation
- SUSAN MURPHY DESENBERG (GRANT WRITER - PRIOR): $21,813 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide quality medical, dental and legal services without charge to people without access to care.
What it reported doing in 2025
The Conejo Free Clinic is a 501-C3 nonprofit organization. We provide medical, legal and dental care without charge for thousands of people each year who are without access to such care. This is made possible by our extraordinary all-volunteer team of 85 volunteer physicians, dentists, nurses, attorneys and support staff.The Conejo Free Clinic has a unique breast cancer program offering advanced diagnostic testing to expedite care and treatment.Our unique Voucher Program offers access to a wide variety of specialty services ranging from vision care, podiatry, dermatology, gastroenterology, and audiology. It includes many areas of advanced dentistry, physical therapy and Special Needs facilitation.Our Patient Advocacy Program ensures that each patient not only has access to advanced care, but will personally be assisted by the clinic executive director and staff to make sure their continuum of care is not broken. Patients will be assisted thru the Patient Assistance Program when they go beyond our scope of care until they no longer need us.We rely on grants and donations from private donations, civic groups and foundations. We receive no government funding.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 63
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 66.3%; rating input score 66
- Program expense ratio: 82.1%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 20.4%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.05; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 21.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 66.3% of revenue deployed · 82.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $571K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $103K · 16 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.