LGBT Technology Partnership & Institute

Legal name: Lgbt Technology Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461684663
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2016
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Staunton, VA, USA
Phone
434-290-0220
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Lesbian, Gay Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$70,700
Expenses
$78,652
Assets
$10,085

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSEPH M KAPP (PRESIDENT/DI)

People named in this filing

  • CHRISTOPHER WOOD (EXECUTIVE DI)
  • JOSEPH M KAPP (PRESIDENT/DI)
  • JOSEPH KOLB (TREASURER/DI)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

LGBT Tech is a diverse team of experts from multiple backgrounds that belong to the LGBTQIA+ community. Grounded in empirical research, we develop programs and resources that support LGBTQ+ communities and work to educate organizations and policy makers on the unique needs LGBTQ+ individuals face when it comes to tech.

What it reported doing in 2016

To promote social welfare, civic betterment, public safety, advancement of civil rights and social improvements by providing information, education, strategic outreach and training to lgbt nonprofit organizations and members on technology issues that are of specific concern to lgbt communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94%; rating input score 94

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.2%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $74K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.