Wee Care Crisis Pregnancy Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680186205
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Mt Shasta, CA, USA
Phone
5309266726
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Reproductive Health Care Facilities and Allied Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$62,852
Expenses
$50,024
Assets
$61,411
Liabilities
$614

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Patricia Leal (President)

People named in this filing

  • DONNA SUE MATHWIG (VP/ Exec Dir.)
  • Patricia Leal (President)
  • JAMES Robert MATHWIG (Secretary/Tres)

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

To provide emotional, relational and practical support to those experiencing difficult sexuality, pregnancy and/or parenting circumstances.

What it reported doing in 2025

Since 1988, when two courageous moms became startlingly aware that young women (and men) needed a safe place to consider sexuality, pregnancy and parenting, Choices has labored to make differences that matter for life especially in Siskiyou county where we are the 14th most economically stressed county in the nation, resulting in skyrocketing rates of hopelessness. In 2025 client visits included 2K+, representing two locations, often including one or more high-risk stressors contributing to pregnancy and parenting challenges: addiction, mental health issues, domestic and partner violence, sexual trauma, and loss of economic resources. Choices is currently staffed by an unpaid executive director, and an average of sixteen trained volunteers to respond to calls and visits by persons seeking help with life challenges. Services are provided at no charge to the public. We are a community collective, with people from different backgrounds and experiences who desire to care well for those who come, who are seeking a variety of services, including conversation, emotional support, referrals, practical resources, parenting education, and/or pregnancy tests (via a self-testing model/non-medical setting). We are a grassroots non-profit in which participants engage without any money changing hands. The care itself is the currency of exchange. Our store features high-need items such as diapers, wipes and car seats, as well as donated maternity and baby clothing, shoes, blankets, and misc baby equipment. Donated baby food and formula, as well as a pantry to share groceries are provided for those in need by individuals and local churches. We're still discovering how to best nurture life, in women, men, their partners, children and families in our local communities. The perspective that guides our care, and is reflected in our name, is that we are all created with the ability to make choices, and we do not get to make decisions for others. We listen, ask clarifying questions, inform about available resources, and seek to build a genuine relationship that has been demonstrated as a key element in strengthening individuals and families. Guests represent diversity across age, ethnicity, socio-economic, sexual orientation and religio-political belief. All are welcome.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.6%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.4%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $50K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.