A Blade of Grass Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274311567
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-PF 2013
Location
Long Island City, NY, USA
Phone
9143159580
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$503,326
Expenses
$805,722
Assets
$1,602,113
Liabilities
$83,497

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LU ZHANG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LU ZHANG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $146,205 total reported compensation
  • DIYA VIJ (CO-CHAIR): $15,000 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL PREMO (CO-CHAIR): $15,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

A blade of grass fund nurtures socially engaged art. We provide resources tailored to the needs of socially engaged artists. Rooted in co-creation and dialogue, our programs-ranging from funding to research-are designed to be flexible and adaptive to the evolving landscape.

What it reported doing in 2024

This year we continued three programs to support artists and creative practitioners throughout the country with resources including funding such as field funds, micro grants, and unrestricted fellowships. Through landscapes, our digital platform for collaboration and commissions, we worked with guests and partners to deepen the ecosystems of socially engaged art.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 69.6%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.3%; rating input score 96; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -60.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.99; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.3%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 69.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $561K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $146K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 28 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.