Pilnet

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205087783
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2128035398
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Public Interest Law

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,392,850
Expenses
$1,751,581
Assets
$2,385,425
Liabilities
$73,039

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREJ NOSKO (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JULIA MAYERHOFER (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREJ NOSKO (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $123,309 total reported compensation
  • JULIA MAYERHOFER (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $121,643 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Pilnet's mission is to partner with legal professionals and civil society organizations globally to protect civic space, address global challenges, and work to build just, equitable, and sustainable societies. Together with its affiliated nonprofits in budapest and hong kong, pilnet advances this mission by mobilizing a global network of legal professionals to support civil society, equipping public interest champions with innovative tools and strategies, and inspiring and training the next generation of public interest lawyers.

What it reported doing in 2024

Putting new tools in the hands of public interest advocates pilnet actively pursued its mission to support civil society and advance access to justice across the globe through a diverse range of programs and initiatives: pilnet was actively engaged in a variety of initiatives aimed at strengthening legal support for civil society organizations (csos) and marginalized communities worldwide. One of their notable achievements was further extension of the legal health check program, initially piloted in hong kong, for use in additional countries. This program helped csos identify and mitigate legal risks, ensuring they could operate more effectively.concurrently, the global nonprofits guide (gng) 2.0 continued to grow, providing a comprehensive resource on nonprofit laws across different jurisdictions. This expansion underscored pilnet's commitment to equipping csos with the knowledge they needed to navigate complex legal landscapes.in response to emerging challenges, pilnet focused on the responsible use of ai by csos and developed webinars and a template ai use policy to guide organizations in this rapidly-evolving field. Additionally, recognizing the growing threat of strategic lawsuits against public participation (slapps), pilnet played a pivotal role in the efforts safeguarding public participation and free speech, as part of the case coalition in europe supporting creation of resources and legal networks supporting victims of slapps.as part of the mario project, pilnet worked to support minority csos in europe through pro bono legal assistance, capacity building, and resources. Similarly, the proteus project in hungary worked to promote pro bono work and strengthen NGO compliance.access to justice for forcibly displaced individuals remained a key priority. A significant milestone in 2024 was the leadership in advancing a global legal commitment to support forcibly displaced populations, mobilizing stakeholders to provide essential legal assistance. This effort was reinforced through community meetings and resource sharing.a successful pro bono legal support model, previously implemented in asia, was introduced in the uk and europe. Additionally, tailored legal health checks were developed in collaboration with refugee-led organizations to strengthen their legal capacity. Support for refugees in thailand remained ongoing, and the refugee clearinghouse continued to connect cases with legal assistance while expanding its outreach to refugee-led organizations.pilnet continued supporting csos working on the climate and environment. This included mapping climate justice actors, developing collaborations with academic institutions and legal clinics, and creating educational resources such as an environmental law course. Pilnet continued providing pro bono support to csos working on climate and environmental topics and expanding the network of law firms. An asia pro bono marketplace was developed to connect environmental ngos with pro bono legal advice.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 58% for direct work, and 42% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.6%; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.36; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $123K · 22 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.