Nashville Prevention Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205395328
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
6159733323
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alcohol, Drug and Substance Abuse, Dependency Prevention and Treatment

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$567,064
Expenses
$563,781
Assets
$272,413
Liabilities
$108,823

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Jenn Garcia (Chairman)
  • Rodger Devore (Treasurer)
  • DeWayne Holman (Executive Dir.)

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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Nashville Prevention Partnership prevents substance abuse and other community health concerns by connecting and uniting individuals, organizations and institutions.

What it reported doing in 2020

NPP managed the state-wide media campaign to alert the public about the opioid epidemic and other health and community concerns. In partnership with the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services and other local and statewide media partners, NPP managed the TN Together campaign, produced videos Public Service Ads for the Have the Conversation campaign and produced a documentary called Transitions in Living: A house that Recovery Built.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 70% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.6%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 96.2%; rating input score 96
  • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.6%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.6% of revenue deployed · 96.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $542K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2013 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.