Nashville PROPEL

Legal name: Nashville Propel Parent Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
852272021
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
615-509-1916
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$404,260
Expenses
$463,118
Assets
$142,125
Liabilities
$225

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SONYA THOMAS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SONYA THOMAS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $108,510 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We organize and develop powerful parent leaders to ignite a movement that demands equitable education policies and practices in Nashville public education.

Nashville PROPEL (Parents Requiring Our Public Education system to Lead) organizes and develops parent leaders to demand equitable education policies and practices in Nashville public schools. The organization serves Black and Brown families whose children have been failed by the current system, offering a Choice Counseling program that helps families discover higher-performing public school options, access data transparency tools, and receive tutoring, ACT prep, and dyslexia resources. Through its six-week PROPEL Fellowship, parents learn the history and landscape of Nashville public schools, understand inequities, and gain advocacy skills to fight for systemic change.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - 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: 25
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.1%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 26.3%; rating input score 26
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: -14.6%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.4%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -36.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -63.5% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 30.1% of revenue deployed · 26.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $122K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $109K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.