Pro-life Utah

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812255653
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
South Jordan, UT, USA
Phone
8018422770
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$746,711
Expenses
$704,390
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY TAYLOR (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY TAYLOR (PRESIDENT): $23,000 total reported compensation
  • DEANNA HOLLAND (DIRECTOR): $23,000 total reported compensation
  • MARY KELSCH (CFO): $11,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Womens support org providing financial and emotional support for women in emotional and financial crisis additionally providing education to the community on the life issues

What it reported doing in 2024

During 2024, Pro Life Utah expanded access to resources that support women experiencing unplanned pregnancies and promote childbirth as an alternative to abortion. The organization provided pregnancy support services through counseling, mentoring, care coordination, and referrals to community resources. Financial assistance was made available for eligible needs such as temporary housing, utilities, transportation, and medical care. Pro Life Utah also connected clients with prenatal care providers, parenting education, adoption resources, and other social service organizations to help improve pregnancy outcomes and strengthen family stability. The organization continued public education and outreach efforts to increase awareness of available support services throughout Utah.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 62% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 42
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.1%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 96.6%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.7%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.7%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 69.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 40.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -20.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.1% of revenue deployed · 96.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $680K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $23K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.