Hybrid Vigor Projects Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274381460
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2013
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Lexington, MA, USA
Phone
6179099358
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,705
Expenses
$3,790
Assets
$986
Liabilities
$62

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFF KASOWITZ (PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • JEFF KASOWITZ (PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR)
  • LISA GROSS (TREASURER & DIRECTOR)
  • RACHEL WASSER (CLERK & DIRECTOR)

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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Hybrid vigor projects designs, develops, and produces socially engaged, participatory public art projects. The organization uses tools, strategies, and frameworks from a wide variety of fields and disciplines to create public projects that make a positive social impact.

What it reported doing in 2013

The boston tree party project works with communities to plant heirloom apple trees (which the btp project has termed, civic fruit) in publicly used spaces. Through the btp project, seventy-two communities from across the greater boston area have planted and committed to caring for a pair of heirloom apple trees. By planting and caring for a pair of apple trees, these communities have a platform to engage their members and to exchange information with other communities participating in the btp project. The btp project has planted 108 trees, which form a decentralized public urban orchard connecting these diverse communities and symbolizing their commitment to health, food access, environmental restoration and civic engagement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.8%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 30.6%; rating input score 31

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -40.1%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.8% of revenue deployed · 30.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.