Wasserman Projects
Legal name: Wasserman Projects Fund
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 850730303
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Detroit, Michigan, US
- Phone
- 313.818.3550
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $99,877
- Expenses
- $117,388
- Assets
- $107,229
- Liabilities
- $15,070
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GARY L WASSERMAN (CHAIRMAN AND CEO)
- ALISON WONG (DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- GARY L WASSERMAN (CHAIRMAN AND CEO)
- DENNIS MCCARTHY (DIRECTOR, SECRETARY & TREASURER)
- ALISON WONG (DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT)
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
Wasserman projects fund helps artists bring to fruition and share new projects with our visitors that inspire discourse on art and issues that are particularly active and timely in detroit. Working collaboratively to present meaningful visual and performing arts experiences while encouraging creative and economic growth in our community.
What it reported doing in 2024
Organization of professional development program for local creatives. Supported emerging artists by providing mentorship, networking, and practical experiences. There were 12 creatives served with several went on to starting their own independent businesses.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 87.4%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 74.3%; rating input score 74
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: -17.5%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 19.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 87.4% of revenue deployed · 74.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $87K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 25/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.