The Polg Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
871876876
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2123158339
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Birth Defects and Genetic Diseases

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,364,753
Expenses
$2,107,901
Assets
$8,622,383
Liabilities
$785,799

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN TSENG (Director / CSO): $315,983 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purposes for which the foundation is formed are to address the unmet medical needs of patiens with polg-related disorders with the goal of being able to mitigate or cure such disorders. The foundation intends to (i) identify high-quality scientific research and discoveries in the treatment and diagnosis of polg-related disorders, (ii) provide capital to assist in the development of new treatments and diagnostic tools for such disorders; and (iii) fund research [and] clinical trials, and invest in mission-related business.

What it reported doing in 2025

Polg foundation's supports and accelerates research to find effective treatments and a cure for polg-related mitochondiral disorders.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 47
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.6%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 91.2%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 49%; rating input score 49; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 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: Limited
    • 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: 37.4%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.09; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 43.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.6% of revenue deployed · 91.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $316K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $255K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 27 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 49/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • 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.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.