Parker Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
853871929
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-PF 2023
Location
Walled Lake, MI, USA
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,732,283
Expenses
$4,031,029
Assets
$223,797
Liabilities
$33,198

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jacqueline Diaz (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jacqueline Diaz (Executive Director): $67,250 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 Parker Project provides direct financial assistance to families of children undergoing treatment for pediatric cancer. Grants may cover essential expenses such as mortgage or rent payments, auto loan and insurance payments, gas and grocery assistance, and medical bill coverage, helping to reduce financial strain during a childs treatment.The Holiday Housing Campaign provides payment for a familys mortgage or rent for the month of December, allowing families of pediatric cancer patients to focus on time together during treatment and the holiday season without the burden of housing costs.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Parker Project provides direct financial assistance to families of children undergoing treatment for pediatric cancer. Grants may cover essential expenses such as mortgage or rent payments, auto loan and insurance payments, gas and grocery assistance, and medical bill coverage, helping to reduce financial strain during a childs treatment. The Holiday Housing Campaign provides payment for a families mortgage or rent for the month of December, allowing families of pediatric cancer patients to focus on time together during treatment and the holiday season without the burden of housing costs

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. 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: 14
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 40
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 15.4%; rating input score 15
  • Program expense ratio: 14.2%; rating input score 14
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -76.8% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 15.4% of revenue deployed · 14.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $571K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $67K · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 31 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 18 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 15/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.