Life Choices Women's Clinic

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860840424
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6023055100
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Reproductive Health Care Facilities and Allied Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$989,750
Expenses
$1,055,129
Assets
$3,791,902
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sheila Riely (Executive Director)
  • Renee Connealy (Board President)
  • Sheila Riely (Board Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sherry Gorslin (Medical Director): $97,439 total reported compensation
  • Mary Graettinger (Finance Director): $52,999 total reported compensation
  • Sheila Riely (Executive Director): $24,376 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

LCWC is a womens health clinic dedicated to improving the lives of women and their families by providing medical care, counseling and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

In the poorest area of Phoenix, McDOWELL, is served by our West location provideing well women exams, STD/STI testing and treatment, The Education programs provide services for teens and young adults. We offered $33,061 in direct aid to help women at the end of their pregncices. We paid rent for 32 women who had a loss of income due to the delevery of a baby. They suffereed a loss of income and faced homelessness.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.9%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 16th 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: -6.6%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.59; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.9% of revenue deployed · 80.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $851K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $97K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 31 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.