Il Circolo Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
591742639
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Boynton Beach, FL, USA
Phone
5612006300
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$242,075
Expenses
$282,623
Assets
$320,818
Liabilities
$32,878

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Diprato (Executive Vice President)
  • Paul Finizio (President)
  • Chris Salamone (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Robert J De Angelis (Treasurer)
  • Rose De Angelis (Director)
  • Antonella Balzano (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Support and promote italian arts and culture

What it reported doing in 2025

Italian culture is part of the mosaic of our daily lives, influencing our vision of art, beauty, fashion, design, architecture, cuisine, nature, language, poetry, philosophy, thought, opera, and music. Since the beginning, annual scholarships have been given to qualified students to study in italy. In addition, the organization has been a major supporter of Florida atlantic universitys italian studies program, one of the only two major programs in the Florida state university system. Il circolo has contributed to a program related to italian usage in the arts at palm beach atlantic university. Furthermore, il circolo contributes to the support of the italian language courses at public and private schools, such as the henderson school involvement in the arts is epitomized by il circolos annual granting of the maestro anton guadagno award (formerly called the giuseppe verdi award) to one of the winners of the annual palm beach opera vocal competition.

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 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.6%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 46.8%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 54.7%; rating input score 55; 46th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -16.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.14; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.6% of revenue deployed · 46.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $132K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.