Engine Advocacy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461064620
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024177031
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Small Business Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,192,200
Expenses
$1,171,875
Assets
$1,014,999
Liabilities
$-4,450

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATE TUMMARELLO (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATE TUMMARELLO (Executive Director): $220,000 total reported compensation
  • NATHAN LINDFORS (Policy Director): $137,590 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Engine supports the growth of technology entrepreneurship through advocacy on local and national issues.

What it reported doing in 2025

Engine Advocacy worked with a network of thousands of startups across the country to advocate on key policy issues impacting startups ability to launch and grow, including rules impacting who can invest in early stage startups, balanced intellectual property and intermediary liability frameworks, and consistent obligations around user privacy and artificial intelligence. Specific projects include advocating for the renewal of federal research and innovation grant programs, providing feedback on federal limitations around early investors, and organizing meetings between startups and their representatives in Congress to advocate for a national governing framework for artificial intelligence.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.2%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 80.5%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $41.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 1.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.87; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.5%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.2% of revenue deployed · 80.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $944K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.