Tirbracken Green Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814793771
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Phone
5025855347
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$649,225
Expenses
$649,653
Assets
$19,964,455
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR CHERYL L NIXON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR CHERYL L NIXON (PRESIDENT): $532,906 total reported compensation
  • JUDGE B WILSON II (DIRECTOR): $343,639 total reported compensation
  • BILLY JO RANKIN (DIRECTOR): $155,285 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The tirbracken green foundation, inc. ("foundation") is organized to support berea college, berea, Kentucky ("berea college") and shakertown at pleasant hill Kentucky, inc. ("shakertown"), both public charities described in section 509(a) of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended ("code").

What it reported doing in 2025

The foundation spends 100% of its time on activities related to making contributions equally to berea college and shakertown. Pursuant to the foundation's articles, the contributions are to be used by the respective recipient as follows: all contributions made to berea college shall be used exclusively by berea college to support the preservation, conservation, management, expansions, and continued sustainability of the college forest owned and operated by berea collece, which shall include, but not be limited to, establishing and maintaining any infrastructure in and directly serving the college forest. All contributions made to shakertown shall be used exclusively by shakertown to support the preservation, conservation, management, expansion, and continued sustainability of the land, plants, and forest owned and operated by shakertown, which shall include, but not be limited to, establishing and maintaining any infrastructure in and directly serving the land and forest owned and operated by shakertown.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.9%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -0.1%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 30.73; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 34.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.8% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $649K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $533K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.