Olivann
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 272265572
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2013
- Location
- Berkeley, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5108414123
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Mental Health Treatment F31 Psychiatric, Mental Health Hospital
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $24,398
- Expenses
- $982,621
- Assets
- $16,508,421
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Rocky Kahn (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Heather Williams (Treas/Sec/ED): $360,796 total reported compensation
- Rocky Kahn (President): $236,027 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide counseling services to low-income individuals and public servants suffering from trauma; Improve the environment, including creating environmental and educationprograms around restoration ecology, public access to nature, and educationaround sustainable and equitable provision of food, shelter, energy, and materials; Conduct research to promote advancement in the sciences and humanities and develop technologies and processes to facilitate others to do the same; and Make grants to promote the above.
What it reported doing in 2025
Olivann carries out its mission to provide free psychological support services through its Mishnock Center Program in Oakland California. The two target populations for Mishnock are returning veterans and sexual assault survivors with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. While some psychological needs of veterans are covered by the VA, the VA in northern California does not cover eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, many of those in need are also low income individuals. Alameda county has a population of 15 million with more than 70 thousand veterans and 4% of the population at or below the poverty level so there is a critical need for Mishnock's services.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 57
- Sustainability: 32
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 64.2%; rating input score 64
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -3,927.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.8; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 60.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 33.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 64.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $630K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $361K · 4 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $137K reported
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.