Indiana Barn Foundation Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
475125047
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3172688026
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$80,090
Expenses
$38,439
Assets
$271,827
Liabilities
$228

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KENT YEAGER (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • RICK RYAN (BOARD VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTINE PAGE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • KENT YEAGER (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • D MICHAEL THOMPSON (BOARD MEMBER)
  • TOMMY KLECKNER (SECRETARY)

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

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

Overview

Mission

We support the preservation of historic Indiana barns.

What it reported doing in 2025

Providing a state wide booklet sharing historical and educational information about Indiana barns. Distributed to historical societies, schools, libraries and county extension offices at no charge to the public.

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 84% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.7%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 83.1%; rating input score 83

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 52%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.07; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 93.7%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.4% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.7% of revenue deployed · 83.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $32K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.