Urban Habitat Program

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200275424
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5108399510
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,092,410
Expenses
$1,802,490
Assets
$9,365,782
Liabilities
$247,170

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Ellen Wu (Executive Dir.): $190,498 total reported compensation
  • Rhea Laughlin (Rsng Juntos ED): $161,765 total reported compensation
  • Pam Flood (Dir Fin & Ops): $149,548 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Urban Habitat democratizes power and advances equitable policies to create a just and connected Bay Area for low-income communities of color. We confront structural inequities impacting historically disenfranchised communities. Through strategic partnerships, we support increasing the power and capacity in low-income communities of color.

What it reported doing in 2025

Rising Juntos partnered with low-income parents, youth, and seniors to advance racial, economic and health justice in Contra Costa County. Our training program supported hundreds of residents to increase their confidence, leadership skills, and understanding of systemic inequities. Our strategic organizing engaged thousands of families to take collective action towards community priorities. We supported residents to engage with local decision-makers for equitable public investments and policies related to housing stability, quality parks, and access to needed services. Our efforts resulted in the passage of eviction protections in Antioch and stronger community leadership for housing stability countywide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.9%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 83%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • 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; 75th 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; 63rd 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: 56%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.2; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.9% of revenue deployed · 83% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $190K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.