Coefficient Giving

Legal name: Open Philanthropy Action Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812644663
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Palo Alto, CA, USA
Phone
6508047100
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$83,192,444
Expenses
$58,649,459
Assets
$41,200,342
Liabilities
$33,353,373

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARI TUNA (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • ALEXANDER BERGER (CEO/DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • CARI TUNA (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • ALEXANDER BERGER (CEO/DIRECTOR)
  • DIVESH MAKAN (SECRETARY/DIRECTOR)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to help others as much as we can with the resources available to us.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization made grants to section 501(c)(3) charities, section 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and other types of entities for general support or specific projects consistent with the organization's goals. The organization made distributions to research and effect change in the focus areas within its mission and in other public policy areas in which it determined that such funds can have a significant impact. With funds from the organization, grantees and contractors may conduct a range of activities, including research, public education and advocacy, and direct or grassroots lobbying, all for the purpose of promoting social welfare.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 64% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.9%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 99.5%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.5%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.81; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.6% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 39.4% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 10 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 71.9% of revenue deployed · 99.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $58.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $17.6M reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 27 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 29 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 32 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.