Boost a Foster Family Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813403400
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Gilbert, AZ, USA
Phone
4802985665
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Gift Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$343,681
Expenses
$405,068
Assets
$218,517
Liabilities
$20,385

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALICE BURBA (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • MICHELLE NOE (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER TERSIGNI (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FROM 09/01/25)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNY COOK (SECRETARY): $26,000 total reported compensation
  • ALICE BURBA (VICE-PRESIDENT): $22,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our hope is that our work will help foster children to be placed in a home in a timelier manner, avoiding lengthy stays in shelters and group homes. Prospective foster families will fulfill their state requirements and be granted licenses quicker, thus allowing them to begin receiving much needed resources only available to licensed caregivers.

What it reported doing in 2025

Our hope is that our work will help foster children be placed in a home in a timelier manner, avoiding lengthy stays in shelters and group homes. Prospective foster families will meet their state requirements and be granted licenses more quickly, allowing them to begin receiving much-needed resources available only to licensed caregivers. During 2025, boost a foster family fulfilled over 1,800 requests for assistance for kinship foster parents throughout Arizona. Of the 4880 children served over 2937 were Arizona foster children. Boost assisted these families and children by providing safety items to kinship families. Of the families served, over 70 were considered low-income. In 2025, boost a foster family underwent a lifecycles assessment and hired an interim executive director to help build capacity and infrastructure to support future sustainability.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 85% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 57
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.2%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.9%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.8%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $349K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $26K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.