Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham
Legal name: The Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 631209631
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Birmingham, AL, US
- Phone
- 205-327-3800
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $89,416,111
- Expenses
- $48,856,845
- Assets
- $350,679,320
- Liabilities
- $24,253,139
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
25 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRIAN HAMILTON (BOARD PRESIDENT)
- CHRISTOPHER NANNI (PRESIDENT/CHIEF EEXECUTIVE OFFICER)
- AMY ABEYTA (VICE PRESIDENT, MARKETING & COMM.)
- GUS HEARD-HUGHES (VICE PRESIDENT, PROGRAMS)
Highest reported compensation
- CHRISTOPHER NANNI (PRESIDENT/CHIEF EEXECUTIVE OFFICER): $246,403 total reported compensation
- CHRIS LUKETIC (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $151,502 total reported compensation
- GUS HEARD-HUGHES (VICE PRESIDENT, PROGRAMS): $142,541 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham is a 501(c)(3) organization that stewards charitable gifts and grants to support nonprofits in Jefferson, Shelby, St. Clair, Blount, and Walker counties. It aims to transform care and concern into real impact through tailored giving strategies for individuals, families, businesses, and professional advisors.
What it reported doing in 2024
With its flexible funds, the community foundation of greater birmingham strives to drive positive change in our five-county area by supporting programs, projects and capital improvements that will have a profound impact on a broad range of important issues and areas of community life, including overcoming persistent poverty; building thriving communities; economic opportunity for all; regional cooperation; and equity and inclusion.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% 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. Some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 78
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 89
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62.8%; rating input score 63
- Program expense ratio: 96.5%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: $65.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.7%; rating input score 99; 36th 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; 77th 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: 45.4%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.18; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 5 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 62.8% of revenue deployed · 96.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $47.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $246K · 25 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 37 of 39 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 445 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 442 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.