Transparency
Where this organisation actually stands.
Everything below is the current position, not the intended one. Where something does not exist yet, this page says so rather than describing the plan in the present tense.
Legal entity
In formation
Incorporation is underway. It is not complete.
Charity registration
None
We are not a registered charity and make no tax-deductibility claim.
Donations
Not open
No money is being accepted from the public.
Programme
Open
Applications are being accepted and reviewed.
01 / Legal status
What irabu.org is today.
irabu.org is an access programme run by Irabu, the commercial company that builds the platform. A separate legal entity for the nonprofit arm is being formed. Until that is finished:
- Every obligation on this site is an obligation of the commercial company.
- The free licences are given by that company, at its own cost.
- There is no separate board, no separate bank account and no separate accounts to publish.
When incorporation completes, this page will carry the registered name, the number, the jurisdiction and the governing document. Not before.
Why say this at all?
Because a school deciding whether to depend on us, and a funder deciding whether to back us, both need to know who they are actually dealing with. A site that leaves it vague is making that choice harder on purpose.
02 / Funding
Where the money comes from.
The programme is paid for out of commercial revenue. That has two consequences worth stating plainly, one good and one not.
The good part
No fundraising overhead, no donor-acquisition cost, and no gap between deciding to help an organisation and being able to. Approved schools are onboarded the same week.
The part that is not
The programme’s capacity is tied to how the commercial business does. If revenue falls, capacity falls. That is a real dependency and it is the main reason to eventually fund this separately.
What we will publish, and when
Once the entity exists and has a first financial year, this page will carry, annually:
- Total income, by source.
- Total spend, split into programme delivery, and everything else.
- The share of income reaching the programme, calculated the same way each year, with the method shown.
- The number of organisations supported, and the number declined, with the main reasons for decline.
- The value of licences given, at commercial list price.
None of those numbers exist yet. We are not printing estimates in their place.
03 / Conflict of interest
The obvious problem, addressed.
A nonprofit arm that gives away its own parent company’s product is a conflict of interest. Pretending otherwise would be the fastest way to lose a serious funder, so here is our position on it.
- The conflict
- Free licences build market share, produce goodwill and create future paying customers. Those are commercial benefits, and they accrue to the company funding the programme.
- What we will not do
- We do not upsell programme recipients. There is no sales contact, no conversion target on the programme, and no point at which free access silently becomes a paid plan. If a recipient outgrows the tier, we say so and they decide.
- Data separation
- Recipient workspace content is not used for commercial marketing, is not shared with the sales side, and is not used to train models.
- No conditions on recipients
- We do not require a logo, a testimonial, a case study or a public mention as a condition of access. If an organisation wants to talk about it, that is their decision and is asked for separately.
- Once the entity exists
- Eligibility decisions will sit with the nonprofit entity, its criteria published, and at least one person on its board will be independent of the commercial company. Restricted funding from third parties will be held and reported separately.
04 / Governance
Who decides.
Today, decisions about the programme — eligibility, approvals, renewals — are made inside the commercial company. There is no independent board, because there is not yet an entity for one to govern.
We are not going to list advisors or supporters we do not have. A names section on a page like this is easy to write and worth nothing, and funders read it that way.
What is in place now
- Published eligibility criteria that we apply consistently, so a decision can be checked against a written rule rather than a mood.
- A written reason for every decline, sent to the applicant.
- An appeal route: reply to the decision email and a different person reviews it.
- A safeguarding contact, safeguarding@irabu.org, acknowledged within one working day.
05 / Framework alignment
The goals this work maps to.
Institutional funders usually ask which frameworks a programme maps onto. Ours maps most directly onto two of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This is our own assessment of alignment — we are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or accredited to the United Nations or any of its agencies.
Quality education
Specifically target 4.c — supporting the supply of qualified teachers. Our contribution is narrow: reducing the administrative load on school staff so more of their time goes to teaching.
Reduced inequalities
Software capability is unevenly distributed between funded and under-funded organisations. Removing price as the deciding factor narrows one specific gap. It does not narrow the others.
We are deliberately not claiming alignment with a longer list. Mapping a programme onto eight goals is a signal that the mapping is decorative.
06 / Measurement
What we will count, and what we will not claim.
Impact claims are where nonprofit communications most often stop being true. So the method is being written before the numbers exist, not after.
| We will report | Source | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|
| Organisations supported | Approved applications | That any of them found it useful |
| Active workspaces at 6 and 12 months | Platform usage | Depth of use, or that usage displaced worse tools rather than adding to them |
| Licence value given, at list price | Commercial price list | Cost to us, which is far lower, or value to the recipient, which we cannot know |
| Renewal rate | Annual confirmations | Outcomes for the people those organisations serve |
| Declines, and why | Decision records | Whether the criteria themselves are right |
We will not publish “hours saved”, “students reached” or “lives changed” figures. Those are modelled numbers presented as measured ones, and we would have no way to defend them.
07 / Security
What the platform does and does not have.
Recipients run on the same platform as commercial customers, so the same statement applies — including the gaps.
Enforced today
- Role-based access control and row-level security.
- Permission-aware search — the AI cannot surface what a person could not already open.
- An append-only audit trail.
- Isolated per-organisation databases.
- Your content is never used to train models.
Not yet
- No completed SOC 2 audit. It is on the roadmap, and we will not claim it before it is true.
- Single sign-on (SAML/OIDC) is not built.
- A signed DPA and custom contract sit on the Enterprise plan, not the tier this programme grants.
The full statement is on the commercial security page.
08 / Corrections
Found something on this site that is not true?
Tell us and we will fix it and say what changed. That includes anything on this page. A transparency page nobody can correct is a brochure.