Boulder Crest Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273228310
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Bluemont, VA, USA
Phone
5405542727
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$29,918,495
Expenses
$17,939,766
Assets
$59,137,992
Liabilities
$649,907

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

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARAH FEHRER (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOSH GOLDBERG (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • CARRIE NELSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VA))
  • JERRY HOLMES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (STARTE)
  • CODI MCCAW (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MIRIAM NIGL (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOSH GOLDBERG (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $293,855 total reported compensation
  • SARAH FEHRER (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $229,140 total reported compensation
  • JANET REID (DIRECTOR OF PHILANTHROPHY): $182,343 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Boulder crest foundation's mission is to facilitate posttraumatic growth through transformative programs, world-class training, education initiatives, research, and advocacy efforts.

What it reported doing in 2025

Boulder crest foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that uses the proven science of posttraumatic growth to help, train, and advocate for combat veterans, first responders, and their families who have experienced traumatic stress. We develop, deliver, and scale transformative programs to ensure these remarkable men and women transform struggle into strength and lifelong growth, so they can live the great lives they deserve. More broadly, we are working to improve outcomes for veterans and first responders through training that teaches individuals how to live healthy and fulfilling lives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.5%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 88.1%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $29.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 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; 64th 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.3; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.5% of revenue deployed · 88.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $15.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $294K · 32 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $428K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.