Peterson-dumesnil House Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311036389
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Phone
5025004157
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$208,624
Expenses
$160,515
Assets
$1,694,126
Liabilities
$409

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANTHONY K KAMBER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ANTHONY K KAMBER (PRESIDENT)
  • JANE ROSE ZUPETZ (VICE PRESIDE)
  • LISA SUTTON (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The peterson-dumesnil house foundation strives to preserve the peterson- dumesnil house as a landmark, providing the neighborhood a sense of historic identity; to serve as a gathering place for crescent hill; to find economically viable uses for the house; and to maintain it for future generations.

What it reported doing in 2025

During 2025 the foundation hosted 36 events that generated 73,450 in revenue. In addition, the foundation welcomed four community organizations that held 108 meetings or events at the house free of charge. The foundation hosted three free outdoor concerts on the house grounds. During the annual crescent hill july 4 event held on the house grounds, an estimated 500 individuals toured the house. During that event foundation board members and the foundation's volunteer corps were stationed throughout the house to provide information about the historical significance of the house. During 2025 the foundation spent 68,500 preserving and maintaining the house and its grounds and providing needed upgrades. Notable charitable programs held or sponsored by the foundation during 2025 include: 1.during 2025 various community organizations held their meetings at the peterson-dumesnil house at no cost. The crescent hill community council (approximately 20 members), the crescent hill garden club (approximately 15 members) and the louisville historical league (number of members unknown) held monthly meetings. The louisville mandolin orchestra (approximately 15 members) held weekly rehearsals. 2.on april 19, 2025 the peterson-dumesnil house and grounds was the site of the crescent hill community council easter egg hunt which was attended by hundreds of individuals including many small children. 3.on june 7, 2025 the peterson-dumesnil house was the starting point for the crescent hill garden tour which was attended by several hundred individuals. 4.on july 4, 2025 the peterson-dumesnil house and grounds was the site of the crescent hill july 4 celebration, which was attended by thousands of individuals. 5.on august 4, 2025 the peterson-dumesnil house hosted the crescent hill community council "spirit of crescent hill awards" presentation. 6.on november 6, 2025 the peterson-dumesnil house was the site of the crescent hill community council's chili night out. 7.on december 4, 2025 the peterson-dumesnil house hosted a holiday open house which was attended by many families with small children. 8.on december 10, 2025 the peterson-dumesnil house was the site of free breast cancer screenings provided by university of louisville health

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.3%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 23.1%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.55; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.3% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $136K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.