Hacking for Defense Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812345565
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
9087522985
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,228,656
Expenses
$1,059,263
Assets
$893,548
Liabilities
$34,488

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARIA TRANQUILLI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ASHLEY BAYANA THRU JAN 2025 (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS): $149,610 total reported compensation
  • SEAN HOLLAND (FINANCE AND SYSTEMS MANAGER): $120,736 total reported compensation
  • MARIA TRANQUILLI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $90,170 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To enable powerful approaches to stimulating science, technology, invention, innovation, and entrepreneurship on university and college campuses, specifically directed toward solving real-world national security challenges.

What it reported doing in 2024

1. Educator training & curriculum developmentthe organization developed and delivered curriculum and training programs for instructors using the "hacking 4" problem-solving methodology at over 60 u.s. Universities. This program advances the exempt purpose by equipping educators to guide students in solving real-world national security and public-sector challenges. In 2024, more than 3,648 undergraduate and graduate students worked on 200+ real sponsor-driven problems, resulting in the formation of 73 new companies. Program expenses supported curriculum development, educator training, and facilitation of student projects. No foreign grants or direct grants to other organizations were made under this program.2. Innovation fund supportthe organization awarded seed-stage, non-dilutive grants and provided mentoring to student-led teams and mission-driven entrepreneurs addressing complex challenges in national security and diplomacy. These awards were used to support early-stage prototype development, user discovery, and technology validation. All innovation fund recipients were u.s.-based. No foreign grants were issued. Program expenses covered direct student support, technical coaching, and administrative oversight of the funding process.3. Alumni engagement and developmentthe organization facilitated alumni engagement for former student participants and educators through ongoing programming, including networking events, career development resources, and cross-sector collaboration opportunities. This program strengthens the long-term impact of the organization's mission by cultivating a connected, mission-driven national talent pipeline. Expenses under this program included event logistics, platform development, communications, and talent outreach. No direct or foreign grants were issued under this program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 73% for direct work, and 27% for grants.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.3%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 58.3%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 40th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.8%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.3% of revenue deployed · 58.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $618K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.