100 Black Men of Middle Tn Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581984750
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
6152482721
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$547,901
Expenses
$737,408
Assets
$306,169
Liabilities
$4,421

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDRE LEE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • ALFONZO ALEXANDER (BOARD MEMBER)
  • DANIEL GREAVES (BOARD MEMBER)
  • WALTER K CLAIR (BOARD MEMBER)

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

To nurture and enhance the growth, development, and opportunities for young black males in middle Tennessee with objectives to encourage value systems and to develop positive work ethics.

What it reported doing in 2025

Year-round program empowers black male youth through exposure, access, and resources that spark new experiences and growth. From spring competitions like stem challenges, debate, and creative writing to summer enrichment with career exploration, academic prep, arts and culture, community service, and signature events like mens day and gala prep, students gain the tools to set and achieve personal and professional goals. Fall sessions round out their journey with financial literacy and health & wellness topics building confident, capable young men ready to leathe organization awarded $44,875 in scholarships and awards, $12,797 in field trips, $36,721 in academic enrichment and $2,938 in other activities. These other activities include a gala, 100 kings program for 5th through 12th grade students. Scholarships are awareded to students that meet academic criteria and field trips help with college and career exploration as well as education and experiential learning.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 44.4%; rating input score 44
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.2%; rating input score 81; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -34.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60% of revenue deployed · 44.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $327K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 27 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.