Tech for Palestine
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 993441367
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 6507735112
- Rating
- 55
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Cultural, Ethnic Awareness
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $667,959
- Expenses
- $326,321
- Assets
- $356,513
- Liabilities
- $5,074
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PAUL BIGGAR (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- AMIR NATHOO (DIRECTOR)
- PAUL BIGGAR (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Tech for Palestine (T4P) is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit whose mission is to harness technology and human innovation for a free and truly sovereign Palestine. We connect project leaders to communities of volunteers We mentor, provide office hours, and support start-up projects aimed at ending apartheid, minimizing media bias, encouraging boycotts, and more We create a community of pro-Palestinian techies to get involved in causes they believe in and help Palestinians get hired. We mentor, provide office hours, and support start-up projects aimed at ending apartheid, minimizing media bias, encouraging boycotts, and more We create a community of pro-Palestinian techies to get involved in causes they believe in and help Palestinians get hired Learn more about our Projects.
What it reported doing in 2025
Our goal is to educate and bring awareness of the struggle for equality and freedom of the palestinian people through technology and advocacy.
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
MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 45
- Transparency & Controls: 55
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 72
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 36.1%; rating input score 36
- Program expense ratio: 74%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
- 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 51.1%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 188.4% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 189.3% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 36.1% of revenue deployed · 74% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $241K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.