Common Vision

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800615097
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
8315889914
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Botanical, Horticultural, and Landscape Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$863,417
Expenses
$684,825
Assets
$376,746
Liabilities
$218,374

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • OTIS JOHNSON (President)
  • PATRICIA MILLER (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • WANDA STEWART (Executive Dir.): $93,095 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Grounded at the intersection of education, food, and the environment, Common Vision nourishes the transformation of urban landscapes so that healthy communities flourish for generations to come.

What it reported doing in 2025

Common Vision managed school gardens and their programs at three Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) - Prescott Elementary, MLK Jr Elementary, and West Oakland Middle School - for the 2024-25 academic year with the same services provided for summer school through contract with Bay Area Community Resources. The organization recovered more that 100,000 pounds of food (before its deposit into landfills) and distributed it at no cost to families at school garden sites from Good Eggs, Sprouts Market, and the Alameda County Community Food Bank. Contracts for tree planting and maintenance and community outreach, education and engagement were confirmed with the City of Oakland, Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation, the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, and OUSD. To date, 100+ trees were planted and maintained in South Prescott Park, Mandela Parkway, Prescott Elementary.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.7%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 75.3%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 20.7%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.6%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.7% of revenue deployed · 75.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $516K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $93K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.