The Praxis Project

Legal name: The Praxis Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300044814
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
(510) 652-5250
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,075,536
Expenses
$17,684,196
Assets
$22,654,317
Liabilities
$1,861,110

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • XAVIER MORALES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • XAVIER MORALES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $278,366 total reported compensation
  • JAQUITA WILSON (COLLECTIVE LEARNING OFFICER): $232,878 total reported compensation
  • ARIEL COHEN (SR. DIRECTOR OF FS & INFRASTRUCTURE): $222,543 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Praxis Project builds community power to advance health equity and racial justice.

What it reported doing in 2025

Network and power building - the praxis project supports mission aligned base-building and power-building organizations that seek to improve health outcomes for all residents through providing them with convening, training, and technical assistance. These support services help organizations promote health and wellness in their communities, improve organizational outcomes, and effectively demonstrate impact.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $31.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • 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: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th 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: 7.3%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.28; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.9% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 74% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $14.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $278K · 17 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $733K reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 14 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.

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: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.