Future 5 Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462986201
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Stamford, CT, USA
Phone
2033588787
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,746,693
Expenses
$2,387,917
Assets
$4,204,623
Liabilities
$1,613,921

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • AMANDA DUBOIS-MWAKE (EXEC DIRECTOR): $150,999 total reported compensation
  • CLIFTON MCFEELY (FOUNDER/BOARD MEMBER): $19,173 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Future 5 connects motivated, under-resourced students in stamford to the people and resources they need to achieve their educational, career and life goals.

What it reported doing in 2024

Next track, our job prep: a weekly workshop that meets january through april that focuses on "soft skills" (handshake, eye contact, first impression), "elevator pitch", career exploration, mock interviews, conflict resolution, resume preparation, job application and follow up procedures. Students are paired with coaches for a variety of role-playing scenarios. Students who complete job prep are given the opportunity to receive a letter of recommendation, copies of their resume and a professional certificate. Community service: our members connect to the community, develop a sense of civic responsibility, and learn the joys of giving to others. Future 5 students participated in a beautification project for kosciuszko park and collaborated with other community initiatives including wheel it forward, pollinator pathway of stamford, ari and person to person (to name a few).alum 5: fostering adult life skills, our college/trades/military graduates have an opportunity to receive professional career advice, strengthen financial literacy skills, and also to give back either by becoming mentors themselves, providing internship/job opportunities for our younger student members or facilitating workplace donations to future 5.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 79.9%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.1%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.76; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.4% of revenue deployed · 79.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $151K · 14 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.