Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment

Legal name: The Rose Foundation for Communities the Environment

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943179772
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
(510) 658-0702
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,603,651
Expenses
$12,025,055
Assets
$27,338,553
Liabilities
$25,948,176

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANGELA AIKO PANDORF (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JILL RATNER (PRESIDENT)
  • WILLARD BROWN (President)
  • KEVIN HENDRICK (Vice President)
  • CINDY TSAI SCHULTZ (Vice President)
  • DAVID MICHELFELDER (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANGELA AIKO PANDORF (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $209,336 total reported compensation
  • PAMELA ARAUZ (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $142,436 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS LITTLE (Secretary): $111,110 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To strengthen communities through conservation, environmental justice, consumer rights, and more, by redirecting resources to groups representing marginalized populations and building power where meaningful change originates.

What it reported doing in 2024

Through its primary grantmaking program, the rose foundation supports community-based initiatives that help promote environmental stewardship, protect the public interest, and inspire community action. The grants that rose makes are derived from a variety of funding sources including colleague foundations, court-ordered settlement payments, governmental partners, and individual donors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $29.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 4.6%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.27; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.95; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 86.6% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $10.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $209K · 19 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.