Progressive Technology Project Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 522173971
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Phone
- 6123513479
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $655,128
- Expenses
- $447,222
- Assets
- $375,648
- Liabilities
- $176,511
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JEREMY SAUNDERS (PRESIDENT)
- ALICE AGUILAR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ALICE AGUILAR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $130,455 total reported compensation
- NATALIE BRENNER (DIR. RESOURCE MOBILIZATION): $113,914 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Progressive technology project (ptp) is organizing resistance to oppressive corporate technologies through political education, movement building, and creating people-controlled technology that serves the needs of community organizations. (continued on sch o)we are the home for collaboratively shaping the role of technology in the social justice movement.
What it reported doing in 2025
Powerbase: with more than 140 social justice/organizing groups using it, powerbase, based on the open-source platform civicrm, is the database ecosystem that ptp developed specifically for community-based organizations to manage online and on-the-ground organizing, communications, grassroots fundraising, voter engagement and advocacy efforts. The program offers database migration services and hosting with training webinars, individual organizational trainings, face-to-face peer trainings, and ongoing technical support and coaching and is focused on growing technology skills, systems and leadership organization-wide. Political development and programmatic strategy are also included in the powerbase program.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 60%; rating input score 60
- Program expense ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $14.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- 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: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 31.7%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 54.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -9.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -7.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -12.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 60% of revenue deployed · 87.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $393K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $130K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.