Big Brothersbig Sisters of Middle Tn

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237056024
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
6153299191
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Child Matching Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,844,143
Expenses
$5,212,873
Assets
$2,761,447
Liabilities
$439,168

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MELISSA HUDSON-GANT (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MELISSA HUDSON-GANT (CEO): $188,808 total reported compensation
  • DAVID ESTRIN (COO): $132,515 total reported compensation
  • BRYAN CURRIE (CHIEF IMPACT): $121,090 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Big brothers big sisters' mission is to create and support one-to-one mentoring relationships that ignite the power and promise of youth.

What it reported doing in 2024

Big brothers big sisters of middle tn (bbbsmt) youth mentoring is an evidence-based practice, recognized nationally in the federal office of juvenile justice & delinquency prevention's model programs guide and in the national registry of evidence-based programs and practices. In bbbsmt mentoring programs, youth are paired with a volunteer mentor and are provided with ongoing agency support to facilitate strong mentoring relationships. Bbbsmt mentoring produces positive outcomes for youth in the areas of academics, well-being/self-esteem, social competence, and avoidance of risky behaviors/juvenile justice involvement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 85% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.7%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 71.9%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 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: -7.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.7% of revenue deployed · 71.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 30 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.