The Futures Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383441825
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Rochester, MI, USA
Phone
5864642610
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$614,405
Expenses
$497,405
Assets
$2,304,823
Liabilities
$26,107

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHELLE GLAZIER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHELLE GLAZIER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $247,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the futures foundation is to be a voice for people with developmental disabilities by helping individuals get access to everyday fundamental needs, facilitating creation of ways to address systemic needs and being a catalyst in driving collaborative lifelong care solutions.

What it reported doing in 2024

Upon formal committee review and approval of grant requests, the futures foundation fulfills such requests for basic needs, skill building opportunities and/or equipment, technology essential/equipment for communication, education, employment; recreation and community programs, otherwise unavailable or inaccessible to the child or adult with special needs. In service and opportunity, over 4,500 individuals and families have been impacted by the foundation - stabilizing home environments, forstering community engagement, providing opportunity and building self-reliance. In addition to direct service, the futures foundation was a lead partner in the launch of Michigan's direct care work task force and serves as a consistent voice for the caregiving needs of children and adults with developmental disabilities. In addition to work with the Michigan direct care work task force, the futures foundation is also a partner more broadly wiht the nationally known and focused caregiving entities. Service on advisory committees and looking soon to active engagements in research, together, the futures foundation and national partners have a shared belief in garegiver value - inclusive of experiences, needs, training, resources, etc. Amidst family caregivers and beyond, for those with a disability needing care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 63rd 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: 19%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.63; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 49.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $437K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $248K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.