Tennessee Economic Partnership

Legal name: Tennessee Economic Partnership Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
621395789
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Nashville, TN, US
Phone
615-337-1596
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$350,239
Expenses
$313,066
Assets
$1,368,701
Liabilities
$90,188

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN BRADLEY (SR VICE PRESIDENT ECON DEV)

People named in this filing

  • MARK HERBISON (DIRECTOR)
  • DOUG LAWYER (DIRECTOR)
  • KENDRICK CURTIS (DIRECTOR)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Through strategically planned networking events, TEP generates leads and business relationships with key prospects and consultants in an effort to attract jobs and investment to Tennessee.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Tennessee economic partnership leverages its strength as a public-private partnerships to help bring new business and industry to the volunteer state. The organization travels to more than 6 cities per year, establishing direct meetings as well as participating in more than 5 industry conferences in an effort to market to side location executives in a variety of industries as to why Tennessee is the right place for their distribution centers, headquarters and other businesses. In our efforts, we meet and market to more than 200 site location consultants and industry executives per year, marketing Tennessee as a great place to do business.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 24
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.9%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 89.6%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.6%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.37; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 87.9% of revenue deployed · 89.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $280K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.