Oasis Legal Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
820696739
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
5106666687
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,028,168
Expenses
$2,618,098
Assets
$4,370,044
Liabilities
$159,196

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ADAM CHANG (EXEC. DIRECTOR, EX OFFICIO): $182,361 total reported compensation
  • MARIA ELENA PANIAGUA (ASYLUM PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $123,475 total reported compensation
  • RACHEL KAFELE (DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS & ADVOCACY): $122,951 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Oasis legal services empowers low-income lgbtq+ immigrants who have survived violence and persecution due to their sexuality, gender identity, and/or HIV status by increasing access to quality, culturally responsive legal representation and social services.

What it reported doing in 2025

Oasis' lgbtq+ asylum program is the core of our work. In 2025, despite a rapidly shifting immigration landscape and the continued government delays in the processing of asylum applications, oasis screened over 250 low-income lgbtq+ immigrants for asylum. We assisted 175 new asylum seekers and continued legal representation for the more than 1,000 asylum seekers whose cases are currently pending.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.2%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.5%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.67; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.1%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.2% of revenue deployed · 81.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 17 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $182K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.