Beacon Center of Tennessee

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201808567
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
6153836431
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,697,352
Expenses
$2,484,142
Assets
$3,099,125
Liabilities
$354,263

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUSTIN OWEN (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JUSTIN OWEN (PRESIDENT & CEO): $222,040 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 beacon center of Tennessee is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization dedicated to providing concerned citizens, the media and public leaders with expert empirical research and timely free market policy solutions to public policy issues in Tennessee. The beacon center empowers tennesseans to reclaim control of their lives, so that they can freely pursue their version of the american dream.

What it reported doing in 2025

General educational and informational programming - communicating with tennesseans about various public policy issues and the impact those issues have on their lives via website, blog, videos, infographics, podcasts, opinion articles, media interviews, and events

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.2%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd 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: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.25; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.2% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $222K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.