Abortion Care for Tennessee

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
845163691
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
8654565552
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$510,790
Expenses
$504,065
Assets
$142,761
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Julie Edwards (Executive Director)
  • Chelsea Swanson (President of the Board of Directors)
  • Robyn Baldridge (Vice President-left during year)
  • Lizzie No (President-left during year)

Highest reported compensation

  • Julie Edwards (Executive Director): $39,315 total reported compensation
  • Robyn Baldridge (Vice President-left during year): $12,845 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Abortion Care for Tennessee ACT Fund is an abortion fund that builds power for Tennesseans by working to remove barriers and increase access to reproductive and sexual health care including safe abortion care for all people. We remove barriers by providing funds to clinics for patients in need of financial assistance.

What it reported doing in 2024

Abortion Care for Tennessee reduces or removes the cost of the procedure allowing patients to breathe easier in a difficult time and focus personal resources on travel and logistical expenses as the average Tennessee must travel over 200 miles for abortion services. ACT provides abortion funding directly to clinics for patients in need of financial assistance. During the 2024 Tax Year the organization provided over $191,000 to assist patients and 14 clinics. Support per patient ranged from $200 to $2000.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.5%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 40%; rating input score 40
  • Fundraising efficiency: $77.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 88%; rating input score 88; 37th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 1.3%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.28; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -32.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.5% of revenue deployed · 40% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $202K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $39K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.