Elsinore Valley Pregnancy Resource Center
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 202335358
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
- Location
- Lake Elsinore, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9512458587
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Reproductive Health Care Facilities and Allied Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $371,220
- Expenses
- $326,402
- Assets
- $132,182
- Liabilities
- $25,506
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Rita Wears (Executive Director)
- Konrad A Aniol (President)
- J White deceased (Vice-President)
Highest reported compensation
- Rita Wears (Executive Director): $33,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Elsinore Valley Pregnancy Resource Center affirms the lives of women and their babies through compassionate support, practical help and hope for the future.
What it reported doing in 2025
The Elsinore Valley Pregnancy Resource Center sees approximately 20 women/girls per week in face-to-face counseling on pregnancy-related issues. The women are given a self administered pregnancy test and then they discuss with our volunteer counselors the results of the test and any issues concerning sexual activity. The Center is open approximately 25 hours per week Monday through Saturday. When the center is closed, telephone calls are routed through a live answering service, which forwards the caller's contact information to us. We receive about 20 calls per day, of which 90% are pregnancy-related, and some result in counseling over the telephone. The Center provides information on area doctors for prenatal care. The Center does not refer anyone to an abortion clinic. We also distribute donated baby clothes, diapers and formula, assisting approximately 75 families per week with these basic supplies. We also maintain a list of local resources available to those families and we regularly host other community organizations that provide self-care information and resources, such as dental care. Our volunteer counselors receive extensive training. We have an active Board of Directors which plans for future activities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 51
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 54.3%; rating input score 54
- Program expense ratio: 61.8%; rating input score 62
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 60th 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; 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: 12.1%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.1%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 54.3% of revenue deployed · 61.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $202K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $33K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.