Reschool
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 822877685
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Denver, CO, USA
- Phone
- 7204601103
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,293,433
- Expenses
- $722,301
- Assets
- $1,126,204
- Liabilities
- $5,751
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- AMY ANDERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- AMY ANDERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $254,061 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To create an equitable education system where learning that happens everywhere is fully accessible to all young people.
What it reported doing in 2025
System transformation. We share lessons learned (via reports and presentations) from implementing our programs that have implications for how systems can be funded and/or adapted to better serve families who face greater barriers to access. We also convene people from across the state and country periodically to learn from each other (people engaged in similar type of work as reschool), share resources, and learn about various approaches to scaling ideas that leverage public systems and funding. We also create resources like our game, revolve, and our community-design tool, design lab, to support others to do the type of work that reschool has been doing to inspire change and co-design with communities to create better programs for the children who live there.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 67
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 40.6%; rating input score 41
- Program expense ratio: 72.7%; rating input score 73
- Fundraising efficiency: $23.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 61.7%; rating input score 62; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 44.2%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.56; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 35.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 40.6% of revenue deployed · 72.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $525K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $254K · 4 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.