Pro-life Educational Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222452876
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Lansdale, PA, USA
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Right to Life

Reported finances

Revenue
$55,280
Expenses
$50,810
Assets
$134,010

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michael McMonagle (President)
  • David Santoleri (Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • Michael McMonagle (President)
  • David Santoleri (Vice-President)
  • Christopher O'Keefe (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Pro-Life Educational Foundations purpose is to assist and to persuade expectant mothers to give birth to their child to educate fellow citizens about the right-to-life to promote chastity among young people to conduct seminars conferences and to grow the pro-life movement.

What it reported doing in 2025

Financial support to organizations that educate concerning the pro-life message. Those that defend the priceless & unique right to life of all human beings conception to death. This would include those that present help with alternatives to abortion & euthanasia.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.8%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 53.1%; rating input score 53

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.1%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.64; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.3% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.8% of revenue deployed · 53.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $27K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.