Technologists for the Public Good
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 825486321
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4152134319
- Rating
- 53
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Business and Industry
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $137,034
- Expenses
- $582,554
- Assets
- $27,013
- Liabilities
- $3,852
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Anicia Santos (President)
- Mark Headd (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Anicia Santos (President)
- Mark Headd (Vice President)
- Molly Porter (Secretary)
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
At Technologists for the Public Good (TPG), we aim to power and lift up the people who are reimagining how the government serves the public, harnessing the power of technology. We believe in building a vibrant community of individuals dedicated to transforming public service to deliver better outcomes to the public. With more than 1,300 members, TPG provides a platform for public good technologists to unite, share and learn from one another.
What it reported doing in 2025
Our professional association offers you connections with other technologists in your community and across the nation. We're a network of folks from many disciplines and backgrounds, including but not limited to: human-centered designers, software engineers, data scientists, product managers, procurement experts, policy analysts, and more that are as passionate as you about creating a government that works for the public. Our common goal is to use our skills in service of the public good, and to help each other by sharing lessons learned along the way. You'll find value in: professional development (workshops and training, research and written guides), leadership, job, and volunteer opportunities, resources and (in-person and virtual) networking, and mentorship 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 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 - 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: 14
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 11
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 21.9%; rating input score 22
- Program expense ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 5
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 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: -325.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 86% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 27.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 21.9% of revenue deployed · 5.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- 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.
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 22/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 5/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.