Artbridge Projects Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611682898
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6464501463
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Humanities Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,743,495
Expenses
$1,458,638
Assets
$376,916
Liabilities
$79,845

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MANJARI SHARMA (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN E PIERSON (KEY EMPLOYEE): $159,846 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Exhibiting the work of emerging artists in private galleries and public spaces. Providing professional development programs for artists.Providing art education programs for the general public such as walking tours and panel discussions including public art and community develop.

What it reported doing in 2025

Program service accomplishments: Exhibiting the work of emerging artists in private galleries and public spaces, such as overhead scaffolding, construction fences and other public spaces in transition. Providing professional development programs for artists such as career-training workshops covering topics such as marketing, branding, grant writing and portfolio reviews. Providing art educational programs for the general public, such as walking tours of public art installations and seminars and panel dicsussions covering topics such as civil engagement in the arts, public art and community development, and emerging art leaders

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 56
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.4%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 97.4%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.3%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.5% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.4% of revenue deployed · 97.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 14 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.