Dirt Palace Public Projects

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472681547
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Providence, RI, US
Phone
4012579316
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Visual Arts Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$485,962
Expenses
$624,348
Assets
$1,864,143
Liabilities
$311,306

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alexandria Marro (Co-Executive Director)
  • Pippi Zornoza (Co-Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alexandria Marro (Co-Executive Director): $49,658 total reported compensation
  • Pippi Zornoza (Co-Executive Director): $49,658 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Dirt Palace Public Projects is a feminist artist-run organization that provides live/work residency spaces and resources for self-identified women and nonbinary artists, fostering a self-organized, non-hierarchical community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Dirt palace public projects facilitates exhibitions at the wedding cake house wch located at 514 broadway which are accessible via public events and tours as well as public artworks on the grounds which are viewable 24 hours a day seven days a week. In 2021 we launched an exhibition in 514 broadway with 3 artists who had photographed the wedding cake house before our renovation. This exhibition continued to be on view in 2024. Public sculptures installed between 2019 - 2023 continued to be viewable from the grounds and street. 8 poets were featured on our word shelter sign over the course of the year. This sign showcases the poetry of a different poet every 6 weeks on the grounds of 514 broadway facing the bus stop.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.1%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.9%; rating input score 98; 58th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -28.5%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.99; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.9%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 34.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $588K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 43 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.