Laurel Pregnancy Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521608500
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Laurel, MD, USA
Phone
3017769997
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Reproductive Health Care Facilities and Allied Services
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$428,074
Expenses
$405,517
Assets
$275,829
Liabilities
$8,426

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREA L CAPUYAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREA L CAPUYAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $50,455 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Lpc exists to glorify god and make known the gospel of jesus christ by offering spiritual, physical, and emotional care for all women and men in their reproductive journey. We do this by: -equipping individuals before, during, and after pregnancy -providing a safe place for individuals to process the impact of reproductive loss, including after-abortion care-helping individuals explore their understanding of healthy relationships and intimacy within their life

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2025, the lpc served 235 distinct individuals in our community. The center provides free services for pregnancy support care, offering a safe place to process reproductive loss including infertility, miscarriage, and infant loss, and assists individuals navigating relationship issues. The lpc provided 1,091 points of engagement through our phone calls, follow-up, programs and services, classes, and material support. On average, each client received five points of service from our team, which can include in-person appointments, parenting classes, virtual peer counseling, follow-up phone calls, and material support. We maintained on average 170 active cases for a team of ten coaches and peer counselors. We provided more than 300 gift items to the individuals we help including prenatal vitamins, a bible, and newborn gift bags.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 81.2%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 63rd 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.3%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.4%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77% of revenue deployed · 81.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $329K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.