Artistic Realization Technologies Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 223421254
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Easton, PA, USA
- Phone
- 7322134738
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $92,538
- Expenses
- $57,421
- Assets
- $105,842
- Liabilities
- $9,319
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KELLY CONTESSA (President)
People named in this filing
- TIMOTHY C LEFENS (Exec Director)
- SUZIE BOYD (Trustee)
- MARK LEFENS (Trustee)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide ways through education and the use of technology for physically challenged individuals to express themselves through art.
What it reported doing in 2024
Physically challenged students were taught through the use of technology to communicate and express themselves through fine art that can be displayed in exhibits. The students obtained personal development skills that allowed them to cope with their disabilities, provided them with an opportunity to contribute to society and increased their self esteem.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 49
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 61
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 39.6%; rating input score 40
- Program expense ratio: 63.7%; rating input score 64
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 37.9%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.84; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 58.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 39.6% of revenue deployed · 63.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $37K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.