The Fab Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264836002
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
8573337777
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Engineering

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,495,763
Expenses
$5,385,435
Assets
$4,370,179
Liabilities
$2,336,002

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHERRY LASSITER (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • LUCIANO BETOLDI (VICE PRESIDENT/COO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LUCIANO BETOLDI (VICE PRESIDENT/COO): $135,621 total reported compensation
  • NEIL GERSHENFELD (CHAIRMAN/DIRECTOR/CONSULTANT): $101,601 total reported compensation
  • SHERRY LASSITER (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR): $76,563 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The fab foundation was formed february 6, 2009 to facilitate and support the growth of the international fab lab network. The fab foundation is a us non-profit 501(c)(3) organization emerging from the Massachusetts institute of technology's center for bits & atoms' (cba) international fab lab outreach program. Our mission is to provide access to the tools, the knowledge and the financial means to educate, innovate and invent using technology and digital fabrication to allow anyone to make (almost) anything, and thereby creating opportunities to improve lives and livelihoods around the world. Community organizations, educational institutions and non-profit concerns are our primary beneficiaries.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization promotes digital fabrication by facilitating the development of community-based and educational fab labs, the dissemination of best practices in digital fabrication throughout the fab lab network, facilitation and dissemination of research and community-beneficial projects, the funding and facilitation of fab lab and digital fabrication projects that benefit people and communities in exemplary ways, such as mobile fab labs for emergency aid, or fab labs for developing world contexts. These services include deploying, installing, training, and consulting for new fab labs as well as programmatic support of established fab labs. The organization works to gather and provide critical evaluation data as well as provide tools for tracking the impact of fab labs in educational, business and social contexts. As part of its services, the organization provides a network function for the fab lab community, bringing together fab labs around the world either physically (for annual meetings and workshops) or virtually through online tools and resources. Additionally, as a resource to educational organizations, entrepreneurial organizations and the general public the organization has developed an online global map of fab labs, makerspaces, and innovation spaces such that people or organizations that need access to these facilities can find them easily.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.5%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 91%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $111.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.7%; rating input score 97; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 17.1%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.53; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.5% of revenue deployed · 91% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $136K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 37 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.