Twin Cities Innovation Alliance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 821701598
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018
- Location
- Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6122294328
- Rating
- 53
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $229,332
- Expenses
- $312,840
- Assets
- $44,472
- Liabilities
- $28,727
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- MARIKA PFEFFERKORN (Founder Board Member): $72,339 total reported compensation
- AASIM SHABAZZ (Founder Board Member): $55,534 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Build and develop a problem-solving ecosystem fueled by critical mass of diverse, highly engaged residents, policymakers, entrepreneurs to transforming them into innovators, purveyors, beneficiaries of change.
What it reported doing in 2025
Data 4 Public Good is a collective space where we share insights, learnings, and have conversations on topics including: Digital justice aftofuturism, data privacy, Artifical Intelligence and much more. We aim to tap into the collective power of community-based change making through Technology, Democracy and justice. TCIA co-powering in innovation in the community to host dynamic conversations with the community. TCIA provides resources, tools and strategies to activate communities and network to communicate transparency and accountability. Our collective work has benefit all communities across the nation that benefit minorities and people of color to grow their information and empower their ability to their business and fami
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 51
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 18
- Sustainability: 7
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 63.5%; rating input score 63
- Program expense ratio: 46.5%; rating input score 47
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- Other executive compensation review process: Limited
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -36.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.65; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 40.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 63.5% of revenue deployed · 46.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $146K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.