Parasol Cooperative Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
851859235
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Hillsborough, NJ, USA
Phone
8667233890
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Violence Shelters

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$195,264
Expenses
$267,473
Assets
$2,471
Liabilities
$258,496

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MEGHANA SHAH (DIRECTOR/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SANDY SKELANEY (DIRECTOR/COO): $60,601 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Parasol cooperative emerged in 2020 from a critical observation: as human traffickers and abusers weaponized digital technology, survivors and service providers lacked corresponding tools for protection. Founded by a unique coalition of survivors, technologists, and advocates, parasol was created to bridge this dangerous gap for vulnerable populations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Research & education: our multidisciplinary team bridges knowledge gaps between technology and abuse prevention through pioneering research on how emerging technologies have been weaponized against vulnerable populations and how they can help protect people from these abuses. We establish safety by design principles and publish accessible resources on cybersecurity practices and emerging threat patterns, translating complex technical concepts into practical resources for survivors, advocates, and technology companies. Outreach & training: we bring specialized digital safety expertise to frontline organizations through customized workshops and implementation support. Our interactive curriculum spans from basic digital hygiene to trauma-informed safety planning, building tangible skills that service providers can immediately apply with their clients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th 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: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -37%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 104.61; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.7%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 45.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -77.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 75.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $203K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $61K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.