Technovation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 208386654
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Menlo Park, CA, USA
- Phone
- 2137464453
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- General Science
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,596,256
- Expenses
- $4,834,181
- Assets
- $4,243,699
- Liabilities
- $1,246,231
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TARA CHKLOVSKI (FOUNDER/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- TARA CHKLOVSKI (FOUNDER/CEO): $167,270 total reported compensation
- BERENICE THOMASSINY VILLAURRUTIA (CHIEF BRAND OFFICER): $130,410 total reported compensation
- KAREN LANG (CURRICULUM DEVELOPER): $109,844 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Empower girls and families to identify community problems and create tech and engineering solutions that develop their leadership and creative problem-solving skills.
What it reported doing in 2024
Our mission is to empower girls to become leaders, technology innovators and real-world problem solvers. In 2024, 10,789 girls on 3,219 teams from 74 countries submitted completed projects.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 54
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 67.6%; rating input score 68
- Program expense ratio: 78.3%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 52.5%; rating input score 53; 16th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 13.6%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 67.6% of revenue deployed · 78.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $167K · 21 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 32 of 35 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 53/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.