Schools Consent Project

Legal name: Schools Consent Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931600332
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Phone
9175448516
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Sexual Abuse, Prevention

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$347,176
Expenses
$200,867
Assets
$283,047
Liabilities
$15,000

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RAHANA RAMPERSAD (PRESIDENT)
  • KATE PARKER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & FOUNDER)

Highest reported compensation

  • KAITLIN ANDREWS (DIRECTOR): $104,167 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to normalize conversations about consent to prevent sexual violence. Our workshops are exclusively led by legally qualified volunteers. This enables us to bring our professional experience into the classrooms and respond to students’ questions with accuracy and authority, whilst taking these difficult conversations off teachers’ hands. We are the only organisation of its kind that provides legal education to school-age children. We believe that these conversations ought to be happening at a young age for there to be real and lasting change.

What it reported doing in 2024

We send lawyers into schools to deliver workshops on consent and sexual violence.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.4%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 54.3%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd 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; 63rd 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: 42.1%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 51.9%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 89.1% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 103.5% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 31.4% of revenue deployed · 54.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $109K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $104K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 31/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.