Akvo Foundation USA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273076296
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
2027638125
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$366,740
Expenses
$342,740
Assets
$657,574
Liabilities
$719

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Mark Nitzberg (Chairman)
  • Becky Straw (Secretary)
  • Rob de Vos (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Working in close collaboration with partners while utilizing our open-source internet and mobile software our mission is to assist them to be more transparent accountable efficient and effective to help them achieve their goals. Our partners work primarily in the international development sector and they all have a common factor: to help people lift themselves out of poverty and to lead healthy and productive lives for example by providing safe sanitation and water to those lacking these necessities. Our philosophy is open; open source software open content open data. Going the open route provides substantial benefits for organizations in the international development sector and more importantly gives benefits to those that need it the most.

What it reported doing in 2025

During 2025 akvo foundation USA did not have any staff in the country and all execution was done by akvo netherlands. All funds received were transferred to work on building the open-source data collection tool called lumen that will enable non-profits to achieve better outcomes for people and the planet.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.5%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.5%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.92; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $343K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 43 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Interest column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.