PollyLabs

Legal name: Pollylabs Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
923614641
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Phone
6463696740
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Small Business Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$489,188
Expenses
$357,566
Assets
$179,961
Liabilities
$3,984

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BAR PEREG (PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BAR PEREG (PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $71,604 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We turn proven technology into solutions for the world’s most urgent, solvable challenges.

What it reported doing in 2024

Repurposing technology for good utilize their funding to help relaunch existing technology ventures through the foundation's unique incubation process, where they address the urgent, solvable problems and provide support in order for the technologies to achieve scale.influence: organizes events, pitch competitions, and gatherings to foster collaboration and catalyze movement in the impact innovation space. This includes participating in and presenting at conferences like socap, and publishing research insights such as the thesis on humanitarian solutions and the future scenario report.incubate: identifies and develops transformative solutions through a thesis-driven process, incubating ventures like careco and foodco. In 2023, this program involved setting up the incubation infrastructure and hiring students over the summer to support research and preparation for venture incubation.accelerate: support to early-stage, "on-thesis" ventures, focusing on diverse founders. In 2023, this program supported three existing impact ventures (aseel, re+connect, and citizen impact) through capacity support, guidance, mentorship, and network access.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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 - 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.2%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 71.5%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.9%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 139.1% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 112.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 52.2% of revenue deployed · 71.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $255K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.