Code Savvy

What it reported doing in 2025

Code savvy experience: in 2025, our experience programs continued to grow and refine the byte- sized challenge, expanding the program to be offered twice per year, once during the summer and once during the school year. This change was driven by participant feedback and helped fill critical summer programming gaps. We served our largest number of educators to date, welcoming 14 new educators while continuing to support returning participants who run the challenge year after year due to high student engagement. We also continued to refine the curriculum based on educator feedback, ensuring it remains accessible, engaging, and easy to implement. In 2025, all four language versions of the curriculum were available and in active use, offering the program in english, spanish, somali, and hmong. We hosted our first-ever innovate for good hackathon, engaging over 50 students in a hands-on day of coding, creativity, and collaboration. The event was supported by 20 industry volunteers and mentors who brought real-world perspective and guidance to students alongside experienced facilitators. The impact was strong: 91% of students reported learning new cs skills, 88% felt more confident working in teams, and 85% were inspired to continue exploring stem. The 2025 technovation girls Minnesota season engaged 85 girls on 30 teams alongside 30 dedicated industry mentors. Notably, 53% of participants were new to the program, underscoring the program's continued success in reaching and inspiring first-time innovators. Ten teams earned state-level recognition and were celebrated at our annual code savvy celebrate awards ceremony. We also celebrated three mentors, ann dixon, laurie aaronson, and kate indrelie, who reached an incredible 10-year mentor milestone in 2025. This year also marked the launch of our "where are they now?" alum blog series, written by technovation girls Minnesota alum bree volker. The series puts a spotlight on the real stories of young women who got their start right here in the program and went on to do remarkable things. Ashley chen is now a phd student in computer science at the university of Illinois. Before technovation, she had no interest in coding. Now she codes every day. Ilsa olsen is a product engineer at johnson and johnson medtech, working on life-saving heart pump technology. She credits technovation directly: "technovation gave me the confidence to pursue a degree in engineering. It gave a really good background of how to complete each step in a project's lifecycle and a support system to ask all the questions we have." prapthi sirrkay is a medical student at saint louis university school of medicine, combining her love of research and science to pursue a career in medicine. Clare dixon studied cybersecurity at the university of Wisconsin and recently stepped into a role as an information security analyst intern at sentry, building skills in systems monitoring, application security, and intrusion detection. Claire jensen is a phd student at the university of Washington studying glaciers and earth and space sciences. She used skills she built in technovation, including learning to code for the first time in this program, to double major in computer science and geology. She now uses machine learning and satellite imagery to study ice in antarctica. Her advice to girls: "take the risk you'll never know if you like something until you try it. Chances are, you'll like it and you'll get something great out of it.- and then there's tracey treat, who is on staff at code savvy today as our communications and operations coordinator. Tracey started as a code explorers student in 2013, went on to compete in technovation, served as a mentor, majored in computer science, and now helps shape the very programs that shaped her. As full-circle stories go, it doesn't get better than that. The "where are they now?" series is ongoing, and these stories reflect what technovation girls Minnesota was always meant to do: give girls

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 82.4%; rating input score 82
• Program expense ratio: 65.7%; rating input score 66
• Fundraising efficiency: $7.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: Limited
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
  • Whistleblower policy: Fail
  • Document-retention policy: Fail
  • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
  • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Missing
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

• Operating margin: -25.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings