Third Future Schools
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 812937922
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Aurora, CO, US
- Phone
- 7205005252
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Charter Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $25,076,224
- Expenses
- $22,329,301
- Assets
- $21,288,871
- Liabilities
- $40,967,147
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PATRICK MILLS (BOARD PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- ZACH CRADDOCK (SUPERINTENDENT): $343,247 total reported compensation
- JESSICA LOPEZ (CHIEF OF STAFF): $264,708 total reported compensation
- SHIRLEY MILES (DEPUTY CHIEF OF INSTRUCTION): $252,610 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
A team of dedicated teachers and leaders, working in a high performance and caring culture, implements wholescale reform of the education system based on different design principles. They maintain an intense focus on high quality instruction and also provide students with experiences to broaden perspective and support the growth of Year 2035 competencies. Third Future Schools holds high expectations for students and staff and believes that everyone can create their future.
What it reported doing in 2024
A team of dedicated teachers and leaders, working in a high performance and caring culture, maintain an intense focus on academic achievement and performance outcomes. Students find success and are engaged through personal learning, which allows students to work at their own pace and learn in a way more suited to their strengths. Third future schools holds high expectations for students and staff and beleives that everyone can create their own future.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 91% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 46
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 81.5%; rating input score 82
- Program expense ratio: 91.5%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 42nd 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; 66th 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: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.92; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.1%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 19.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 81.5% of revenue deployed · 91.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $20.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $343K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $108K reported
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 7 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.