El Pozo De Vida

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453459007
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Santa Ana, CA, USA
Phone
5303858639
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Corporate Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,039,589
Expenses
$1,053,581
Assets
$271,844
Liabilities
$2,632

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Benjamin Yu (President)
  • Stephen Brown (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Benjamin Yu (President): $11,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Human trafficking rescue, restoration and rehabilitation of human trafficking victims.

What it reported doing in 2025

El Pozo de Vida structures its work around three strategic pillars: Prevention, Intervention, and Restoration, addressing human trafficking across its full continuum. In 2025, the organization reached over 21,000 people through these combined efforts. Prevention 21,044 people reached in 2025 Prevention efforts focus on populations disproportionately vulnerable to trafficking and exploitation, strengthening protective factors and reducing risk through education, community engagement, and cultural change. * Students, Parents, and Communities 12,739 reachedEducational workshops for youth, families, educators, and institutions focused ononline safety, bullying prevention, sexual exploitation, and human trafficking. * Migrant Communities 2,200 reachedPrograms equipping migrants with tools to identify and prevent trafficking risks, alongside child-centered activities that build self-esteem, body awareness, andabuse-prevention skills. * Child Trafficking and Forced Begging 1,423 reachedHuman rights education and self-protection workshops for children in situations of forced begging, paired with community-based efforts addressing drivers ofexploitation. * Men and Masculinities 4,682 reachedEngagement of men and boys in reflection on healthy versus harmful masculinity, addressing demand and behaviors that perpetuate trafficking. Intervention 257 people supported in 2025 Intervention programs provide relational, harm-reduction support to women in situations of prostitution, prioritizing dignity, trust, and access to care. * Community Center (La Merced) 110 women supported A safe and welcoming space offering meals, workshops, therapy, tutoring, and community-building activities that foster stability and empowerment. * Red-Light District Outreach 147 women reachedRegular outreach in red-light districts focused on relationship-building, emotionalsupport, and connection to services, providing moments of safety, care, and hope forwomen experiencing ongoing exploitation. Restoration 39 survivors supported in 2025 Restoration services provide intensive, long-term support for survivors as they heal, regain stability, and move toward independent living. * Safe House 25 girls supportedA specialized witness protection program for minors awaiting testimony against theirtraffickers, providing 24/7 holistic care, individualized education plans, legalaccompaniment, and therapeutic support. * Transition House 7 young women supportedHousing and reintegration support for young women transitioning from the SafeHouse to independent living, including education or employment placement, mentorship, and continued therapy.* Nunay Social Enterprise 80 women mentored; 7 survivors employedA survivor-led jewelry social enterprise providing dignified employment, skillsdevelopment, and mentorship, supporting economic independence and long-termreintegration.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.2%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 96.9%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $94.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.3%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.2% of revenue deployed · 96.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $11K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.