Yellow Ribbon Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364567583
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Bethesda, MD, USA
Phone
2402231180
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,950,952
Expenses
$2,640,009
Assets
$2,962,439
Liabilities
$441,283

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Gina Harrow (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Gina Harrow (Executive Director): $188,944 total reported compensation
  • Ariana Caragliano (Chief Advancement Officer): $173,803 total reported compensation
  • David W Heiser (Chief Financial Officer): $62,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Responsibly provide high-touch support for wounded, ill, and injured American service members and their families and caregivers to fill gaps throughout recovery and reintegration to home communities, through an engaged national network.

What it reported doing in 2025

Crossroads Program: provides housing and transportation to families of wounded, ill, and injured post 9/11 service members receiving extended medical care and/or rehabilitation at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland or at other local military or Veterans Administration hospitals across the United States. YRF provides free rental cars, hotel stays, fully-furnished apartments, and other assistance to keep families together during extensive medical treatment and rehabilitation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 60% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.8%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.1%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.8% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 21 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 47 of 48 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.