nonprofit educational testing and assessment organization

ETS

A nonprofit educational testing organization behind GRE, TOEFL, Praxis, TOEIC, HiSET, and other assessment programs. ETS scores above private testing firms because of nonprofit structure and research mission, but standardized-test gatekeeping, fees, and credential dependence keep it qualified.

Why this matters: ETS is a central testing gatekeeper for college, graduate school, teaching, and international English-language credentials.

Letter grade D Extractive High confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 12, 2026

Final Score 29* D - Extractive

DEXTRACTIVE29 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material36

Bonus+1

Cap66No structure cap

After Cap37

Penalties-8

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Ownership, with the largest penalty coming from Youth Capture.

Strengths

Ownership5/10
Extraction5/10
Governance4/10

Penalties

Youth Capture-2
Accountability Opacity-2
Policy Capture-1
Subscription Capture-1

Evidence state

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims16
Direct axis claims16
Coverage16/16

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	5 / 10	ETS's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. ETS's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. On Ownership, ETS sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence ETS's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context ETS's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context ETS's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context ETS's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context ETS operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context ETS's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context ETS operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context ETS's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context ETS's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	4 / 10	ETS's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. ETS's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. On Governance, ETS sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context ETS's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] ETS's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context ETS's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context ETS's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context ETS operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context ETS's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context ETS operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context ETS's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context ETS's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	5 / 10	ETS's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. ETS's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. On Extraction, ETS sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context ETS's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context ETS's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] ETS's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context ETS's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context ETS operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context ETS's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context ETS operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context ETS's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context ETS's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	3 / 7	ETS's linked public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. ETS's linked public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. On Labor Sovereignty, ETS belongs low because control and surplus are mainly held by shareholders, executives, landlords, investors, or institutional boards while users face practical dependence. In a high-contact category like Education, that asymmetry counts more heavily than it would for an optional purchase. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context ETS's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context ETS's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context ETS's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] ETS's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context ETS operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context ETS's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context ETS operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context ETS's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context ETS's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	4 / 7	ETS operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. ETS operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. On Solidarity with the Unemployed, ETS sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context ETS's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context ETS's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context ETS's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context ETS's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] ETS operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context ETS's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context ETS operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context ETS's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context ETS's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	4 / 7	ETS's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. ETS's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. On Loss-Bearing Fidelity, ETS sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context ETS's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context ETS's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context ETS's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context ETS's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context ETS operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] ETS's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context ETS operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context ETS's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context ETS's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	3 / 5	ETS operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. ETS operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. On Market Conduct, ETS belongs low because control and surplus are mainly held by shareholders, executives, landlords, investors, or institutional boards while users face practical dependence. In a high-contact category like Education, that asymmetry counts more heavily than it would for an optional purchase. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context ETS's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context ETS's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context ETS's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context ETS's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context ETS operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context ETS's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] ETS operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context ETS's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context ETS's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	4 / 5	ETS's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. ETS's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. On Product Integrity, ETS sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context ETS's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context ETS's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context ETS's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context ETS's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context ETS operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context ETS's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context ETS operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] ETS's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context ETS's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	4 / 5	ETS's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. ETS's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. On Scale Integrity, ETS sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context ETS's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context ETS's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context ETS's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context ETS's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context ETS operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context ETS's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context ETS operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context ETS's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] ETS's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Policy Capture ? Private-interest attempts to bend law, regulation, subsidies, taxes, enforcement, trade, labor, safety, competition, environmental, healthcare, housing, surveillance, civil-liberties, or consumer policy against workers, customers, citizens, affected communities, or ecological life. Public-interest advocacy is not penalized merely because it is lobbying. Range: -15 to 0.	-1	ETS's public record makes Policy Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. ETS's public record makes Policy Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Policy Capture penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence ETS's public record makes Policy Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [11]
Youth Capture ? Manipulative youth-directed marketing, youth-data or attention monetization, collectible/add-on traps, parasocial or identity capture, surprise mechanics, or treating young people as lower-disclosure consumers. Making useful toys or welcoming children is not itself penalized. Range: -5 to 0.	-2	ETS's public record makes Youth Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. ETS's public record makes Youth Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Youth Capture penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence ETS's public record makes Youth Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [12]
Subscription Capture ? Manipulative recurring-payment, automatic-renewal, cancellation-friction, bundling, trial-conversion, or refund designs that profit from inertia or confusion. Range: -5 to 0.	-1	ETS's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. ETS's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Subscription Capture penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence ETS's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [13]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	ETS's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. ETS's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Accountability Opacity penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence ETS's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [14]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-1	ETS's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. ETS's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Identity Capture penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence ETS's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [15]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-1	ETS's public record makes Ideological Disavowal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. ETS's public record makes Ideological Disavowal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Ideological Disavowal penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence ETS's public record makes Ideological Disavowal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [16]

Bonus Credits

Bonus	Credit	Why this credit
Good Deal ? Credit for unusually fair value: durable quality, fair pricing, low lock-in, and clear customer surplus.	1 / 3	ETS's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. ETS's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This earns limited Good Deal credit because the record shows a concrete public, cooperative, affordability, access, transparency, or community-accountability feature beyond ordinary market service. The credit stays limited unless affected users can reliably exercise durable power over the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence ETS's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [10]

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

High 80/100

16 verified linked claims 16 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 16/16 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

16 verified linked claims

Source quality 11/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

16 direct claims across 16 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

16/16 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1ETS's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category.

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

2ETS's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers.

Governance Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

3ETS's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery.

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

4ETS's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

5ETS operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS services catalogGeneral web source · 58%

6ETS's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

7ETS operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice.

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS services catalogGeneral web source · 58%

8ETS's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

9ETS's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities.

Scale Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS services catalogGeneral web source · 58%

10ETS's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Good Deal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS services catalogGeneral web source · 58%

11ETS's public record makes Policy Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Policy Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS services catalogGeneral web source · 58%

12ETS's public record makes Youth Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Youth Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS services catalogGeneral web source · 58%

13ETS's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Subscription Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS services catalogGeneral web source · 58%

14ETS's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS services catalogGeneral web source · 58%

15ETS's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS services catalogGeneral web source · 58%

16ETS's public record makes Ideological Disavowal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

ETS services catalogGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

Competitors

AGOOD54 Child Care Aware of America nonprofit childcare resource and referral organization · same market AGOOD52 Boys & Girls Clubs of America nonprofit youth-development federation · same market AGOOD51 YMCA of the USA nonprofit youth, childcare, fitness, and community-services network · same market BQUALIFIED48 Common App nonprofit college-application platform · same market DEXTRACTIVE32 National Student Clearinghouse nonprofit education-data and verification organization · same market DEXTRACTIVE15 Student PIRGs student public-interest organizing network · same market DEXTRACTIVE14 Bright Horizons public employer-sponsored childcare and education company · same market DEXTRACTIVE14 College Board nonprofit college-admissions and assessment organization · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for ETS Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log