Tennessee Legal Community Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
621584777
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
6153837421
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,812,046
Expenses
$1,703,462
Assets
$9,272,662
Liabilities
$4,240,506

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHEREE WRIGHT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHEREE WRIGHT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $264,810 total reported compensation
  • DERRICK DISHNER (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $129,659 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Tennessee legal community foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides continuing legal education for members of the Tennessee legal community and works to increase the public's access to our justice system.

What it reported doing in 2024

Leadership law aims to serve the legal profession by equipping participants with the vision, knowledge, and skills necessary to serve as leaders in the profession and in the community as a whole. Eligible candidates will be Tennessee lawyers with 5-15 years of experience by the time of nomination, calculated from the year in which they were licensed. The goals of leadership law are to nurture effective leadership with respect to ethical, professional, and community service issues, to build relationships among legal leaders from across the state and from across disciplines within the profession, to raise the level of awareness among lawyers regarding the broad range of issues facing the legal profession, and to enhance the diversity of leaders within the legal profession and the community as a whole.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 90% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, 1% for grants, and 56% for affiliated organizations.

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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 89.6%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 26th 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: 51.5%; rating input score 52; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.44; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.4% of revenue deployed · 89.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $265K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 52/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.