Danny Parmertor Memorial Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460757555
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Chardon, OH, USA
Phone
4404797433
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,512
Expenses
$39,898
Assets
$163,062
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ron Parmertor (President)
  • Lisa Zingale (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Ron Parmertor (President)
  • Nick Zingale (Treasurer)
  • Dina Parmertor (Secretary)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our charity was set up in 2012 to provide scholarships to graduates of Chardon High School and Auburn Career Center. We had our annual fundraiser dinner/raffle in April 2025. Our fundraiser includes a dinner and raffling of cash and other prizes.

What it reported doing in 2025

Scholarships paid to graduates of Chardon HS and Auburn Career Center: Paid cash scholarships to the following students: Dylan Wilson $10,000; Nicholas Salvatore $5,950; Ethan Weaver $5,008; Dominique Walley $4,128; Navier Hall $3,036; Joshua Bruce $1,463; James Burkhammer $773; Richard Nemetz $181.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 77.8%; rating input score 78

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.3%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.09; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 32.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85% of revenue deployed · 77.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $31K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.