El Pasoans for Life Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742247355
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
El Paso, TX, USA
Phone
9155392258
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$267,944
Expenses
$319,462
Assets
$1,323,035
Liabilities
$2,808

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANGELINA WICKER (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANGELINA WICKER (CEO): $83,605 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to communicate accurate information to those affected by an unplanned pregnancy and to provide them with physical, emotional, and spiritual support.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, pregnancy and fatherhood solutions served 1162 women, men, and children. An after hours telephone hotline was also operational to counsel clients which are not included in these numbers. There were 89 ultrasounds administered to our clients. Parenting classes were given in person and virtually for both men and women. We had 28 participants in our parenting classes. All of our clients were given information on healthy sexuality and the dangers and consequences of contracting an sti. We held diaper drives to serve our community - distributing diapers, wipes, baby essentials, and even gifts for the parents. We hired a fatherhood coordinator to serve the men that walk through our doors to offer mentoring, options counseling, and spiritual help to those that desired it. Several presentations were made about our free services in churches and to civic organizations in our community. We also held our first retreat for those that have suffered pregnancy loss to offer a message of hope and encouragement

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.8%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 44.6%; rating input score 45
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 26th 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.2%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.14; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.8% of revenue deployed · 44.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $142K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $84K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.