Scarlett Parks Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 814182449
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Tulare, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5599727631
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $51,665
- Expenses
- $19,222
- Assets
- $38,541
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DONALD SEARCY (President)
People named in this filing
- DONALD SEARCY (President)
- JOLETTA SEARCY (Director)
- CLARISSA PARKS (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The taxpayer is dedicated to providing opportunities for all young people with rett syndrome to live a better life. This is done through donations to valley children's hospital in fresno, awareness campaigns to encourage more research to find a cure, and through financial assistance to affected families who need special medical equipment.
What it reported doing in 2025
The foundation has donated money to valley children's medical group in fresno, California. Valley children's is a state-of-the-art children's hospital who treats many children who are battling rett's syndrome. The foundation has also given financial assistance to families of children with rett's syndrome who were in need of specialized medical equipment and raised awareness of the disease through its events and news coverage in hopes that more money will be allocated to research towards finding a cure for rett's syndrome.
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
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 63
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 70
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 41.2%; rating input score 41
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 62.8%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.01; rating input score 65; 65th 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: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 41.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $21K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- 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 41/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.