One Earth Philanthropy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 852588841
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 2123782807
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $9,615,055
- Expenses
- $6,000,043
- Assets
- $6,491,808
- Liabilities
- $224,284
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Justin Winters (President, Co-Founder, ED, and Board Member)
Highest reported compensation
- Justin Winters (President, Co-Founder, ED, and Board Member): $276,125 total reported compensation
- Karl Burkart (Co-founder & Deputy Director): $196,299 total reported compensation
- Kate Thomas (Director of Philanthropy and Partnerships): $116,019 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
One Earth connects thinkers, doers, activists, and knowledge holders from around the world to solve humanity's greatest ecological challenges--together. Our belief is simple: The solutions to the climate crisis already exist. By connecting people, resources, and ideas, we can unlock humanity's full problem-solving potential to build a just and thriving future for all.
What it reported doing in 2025
Guided by a comprehensive Solutions Framework, a roadmap of 75+ proven pathways across Energy Transition, Nature Conservation, and Regenerative Agriculture, we turn knowledge into impact. By connecting local solutions to global systems, we support coordinated, place-based action through a suite of tools, a robust grantmaking strategy, and storytelling platforms that inform, guide, and inspire change. Our core insight is that solving the climate crisis requires shifting both culture and capital. Narratives shape priorities, and priorities shape where resources flow. To scale the solutions our planet needs, we must change both the story people tell about climate action and the systems that determine where investment goes. To do this, One Earth has built a set of interconnected tools that answer three foundational questions: what to invest in, where it matters most, and how capital needs to shift to support them. WHAT TO INVEST IN: The One Earth Solutions Framework identifies more than 75 science-based pathways across Energy Transition, Nature Conservation and Regenerative Agriculture that are required to stabilize the climate and protect biodiversity. WHERE IT MATTERS MOST: The Global Safety Net and Bioregions Framework identify priority places landscapes and seascapes where conservation and restoration efforts can deliver the greatest ecological impact. HOW CAPITAL MUST SHIFT: Through the Minding the Gaps report and the Solutions Finance Tracker, One Earth analyzes how climate finance is currently allocated across solutions and highlights where critical funding gaps remain. Together, these tools translate complex science into clear priorities for philanthropy, investment, and policy, and inform the One Earth Fund, which mobilizes catalytic philanthropic capital toward the most underfunded, high-impact solutions and geographies identified through our research and network. At the same time, One Earth's storytelling platforms, including the Solutions Hub and global media partnerships, help bring these solutions and the people leading them to life. By making climate solutions tangible, relatable, and inspiring, we help shift cultural understanding toward a vibrant future that is possible. By connecting science, story, and capital, One Earth helps align the climate movement around the solutions that can deliver on the ground impact and systems-level change.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 75% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 94
- Sustainability: 62
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.3%; rating input score 55
- Program expense ratio: 88.6%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $34.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 99%; rating input score 99; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 37.6%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.08; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 30.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 29.5% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 55.3% of revenue deployed · 88.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $276K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $147K reported
- Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.