Friends of the Hamilton Township Library

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223029529
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Trenton, NJ, USA
Phone
6095814060
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$71,032
Expenses
$62,827
Assets
$135,590

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CAROL A HAWKES (President)
  • JODI BRIGMAN (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • CAROL A HAWKES (President)
  • JODI BRIGMAN (Vice President)
  • GAYLE BODINE (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

To assist the hamilton township public library system with the selling of used books. The proceeds from the sale of used books are used to purchase various items for use by the library systtem to service the public interest.

What it reported doing in 2025

To assist the hamilton township public library systtem with the sale of used books. The proceeds from the sale of the used books are used to purchae various items for use by the library system to service the public interest.

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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.6%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.16; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $63K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.