Oasis Community Partners

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810709350
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022488494
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$198,552
Expenses
$236,362
Assets
$1,890,296
Liabilities
$32,813

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • PHILIP SAMBOL (EXECUTIVE DI): $55,711 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Oasis community partners' mission is to improve food access and community health. To achieve our mission, oasis provides food, education and direct services in low-income communities commonly known as food deserts. Significant activties include health education, consulting realted to healthy food access, emergency food programs, and nutrition education.

What it reported doing in 2020

Health education programs: oasis conducts several health educations programs, in youth education, we offer the youth store and garden tour. This evidence-based program is centered around tactile and experential learning opportunities that connect youth to how their food is grown, processed and transported to the shelf of their neighborhood grocery store and community garden, oasis also offers the healthy snacks for kids program in partnership with ymca to help youth in their after-school programs gain the skills and confidence to prepare healthy snacks for themselves at home. In partnership with nutritionists and local chefs, oasis offers cooking classes in the communities we serve to create healthy behaviors that prevent chronic disease by providing insight and information about the long-term health impacts of daily nutrition. Oasis partners with public health and academic partners to develop and evaluate relevant programs.

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 a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some related-organization disclosures are missing and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.9%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 68%; rating input score 68
  • 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: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 18th 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: -19%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -21.4% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -85.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.9% of revenue deployed · 68% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $161K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $56K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and related organizations
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2017 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.