Order of Italian Sons and Daughters

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237633369
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Mcdonald, PA, USA
Phone
4128250820
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$42,392
Expenses
$18,882
Assets
$472,242
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANNY PAUL CERRONE JR ESQUIRE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANNY PAUL CERRONE JR ESQUIRE (PRESIDENT): $450 total reported compensation
  • CYNTHIA MATHIEU (TREASURER): $450 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The main purpose of the organization is to provide financial support to local charities and other fund raising activities. To qualify for membership, you must be of italian descent or married to a person of italian descent. 10% of the membership can be of non italian descent. Examples of organizations that received financial contributions from the organization: swissvale food bank swissvale borough swissvale youth baseball swissvale library light of life rescue mission st bernadette church st john fisher church good shepherd church word of god church madonna dell castella church greater pittsburgh food bank jubilee soup kitchen greater pittsburgh community food bank isda fraternal association kdka turkey fund salvation army the organization provides annual scholarships to children of members to help further their education. The organization sometimes donates to swissvale borough depending on the type of fund raiser. In the past, the organization has made donations for local and nationa

What it reported doing in 2025

To provide financial support to local charities and scholarships to local students as suggested by the officers of the organization.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.2%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 47.1%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 55.5%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.01; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.2% of revenue deployed · 47.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $450 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.