Princeton Pettoranello Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 223122327
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Princeton, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 6099217911
- Rating
- 62
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Promotion of International Understanding
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $10,330
- Expenses
- $5,390
- Assets
- $209,878
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
People named in this filing
- See Attached Listing (Various)
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
Research to perpetuate the heritage and the common bond and relationship between the town of Pettoranello di Molise, Province of Isernia, Italy and Princeton Township, County of Mercer, New Jersey. Other purposes include the exchange and development of activities and archival records, and the education as to history, archeology, anthropology, folklore, culinary art, performing arts, fine arts, literature and athletics, and the providing of scholarship programs within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Includes no Foreign Grants.
What it reported doing in 2025
See Attached
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 82% 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 48
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 77
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 35.9%; rating input score 36
- Program expense ratio: 68.8%; rating input score 69
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 47.8%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 38.94; rating input score 98; 98th 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: -12.2% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -8.5% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 35.9% of revenue deployed · 68.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.