C4C Oakland Action Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 882925516
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Oakland, CA, USA
- Phone
- 6155047315
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Citizen Participation
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $210,164
- Expenses
- $228,397
- Assets
- $14,413
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Nathan Peterson (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Nicole Deane (Org. Director): $62,500 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
A) Promotion of social welfare purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. B) To advocate for community power-building and deepening grassroots movement capacity through education, training, coalition building and organizing residents for civic engagement. c) To train community organizers in techniques for building grassroots support and in issue advocacy.
What it reported doing in 2025
Care 4 Community Action organizes in Oakland neighborhoods to build support for a progressive political agenda: making housing a human right, investing in holistic community safety, winning climate and environmental justice for all, and taxing corporate wealth to fund City services. In 2025, C4C Action knocked on over 18,000 doors in total, engaging 6,000 Oakland residents in face-to-face deep canvassing conversations. Through our Summer Organizing Fellowship, we engaged 8 young Oaklanders (between the ages of 16 - 26) in a rigorous community organizing training program. We organized 4 neighborhood meetings attended by over 100 residents. We organized 5 Good Neighbor cleanups attended by over 100 housed and unhoused residents.We organized 5 Public Comment trainings that educated and mobilized over 250 residents to participate in the democratic process at the local level.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 21
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78.4%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 72.2%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -8.7%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 27.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -27.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 33.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -50.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 78.4% of revenue deployed · 72.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $165K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $62K · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.