Louisiana Right to Life Educational Committee Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581647634
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Orleans, LA, USA
Phone
5048356520
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Pregnancy Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,354,624
Expenses
$1,413,536
Assets
$3,657,626
Liabilities
$14,907

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • William Watkins (President Board Member)
  • Celie Clark (Vice President Board Member)
  • Benjamin Clapper (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • William Watkins (President Board Member)
  • Celie Clark (Vice President Board Member)
  • John Nickelson (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Promote the common good and the general welfare of the people of Louisiana through the advancement of reverance for the human life by reaffirming the principle that all human beings from the moment of connception are created equal and are endowed with... contd on Sch O

What it reported doing in 2024

Pro-Life Education Programs Inspired the Youth During June 2024 through May of 2025, we continued our mission to empower young people to protect life and help moms through numerous pulse youth events and presentations. 81 students were expertly trained at two Pulse Immersion Days and our Pulse Leadership Institute. Our youth team made 180 pro-life presentations to 9,029 students at schools and churches around the state. We impacted another 9,590 young people through our Geaux Forth event, outreaches, at events, on college campuses, and other efforts. We continued to train, facilitate and educate college pro-life. During this time, we supported college pro-life groups and a pro-life student group at LSU Medical School in New Orleans. As a part of our Youth Outreach, we brought speaker Rebekah Hagan to speak about the dangers of abortion pills and her inspirational choice of choosing life against all odds at assemblies at... contd on Sch O

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 83.4%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.2%; rating input score 81; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -4.3%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.59; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.8% of revenue deployed · 83.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • 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.