Veterans Future Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821433446
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Bella Vista, AR, USA
Phone
4795024303
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Job Training

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,388,362
Expenses
$1,875,313
Assets
$383,102
Liabilities
$298

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATELYN GALLANTY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • TIM KIRKSEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JOSH CHRISTNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • TOM DUNN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • KATELYN GALLANTY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • TIM KIRKSEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JOSH CHRISTNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Our vision is to create a society where transitioning military veterans are empowered, embraced, and equipped with the necessary resources and support to succeed in their civilian lives. We strive to create a vibrant and inclusive community that celebrates the skills and experiences veterans bring, making our region a model for seamless transitions, ultimately inspiring other regions to adopt similiar initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization strengthened the veteran community by building mental resilience and social connection. Using a multi-tiered approach, they engaged 800 vff members through weekly calls, reached over 100 veterans with eight speaker events, and delivered personal development through more than 600 group coaching calls and 300 one-on-one sessions. Targeted educational programs included three grief recovery cohorts for 22 students and two values-based living classes for 30 veterans, effectively bridging broad outreach with individualized support.

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 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.6%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.5%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.6% of revenue deployed · 87.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.