Tennessee Poultry Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
626120238
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Shelbyville, TN, USA
Phone
9312251123
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$517,448
Expenses
$482,914
Assets
$328,605
Liabilities
$17

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT BLACK (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TRACY RAFFERTY (EXECUTIVE DI): $109,648 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To enhance the image and visibility of the poulty and agriculture industry by promoting the poultry and egg industry in the state of Tennessee.

What it reported doing in 2025

To enhance the image and visibility of the poultry agriculture industry by promoting the poultry and egg industry in the state of Tennessee.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 71
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 85.3%; rating input score 85; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95%; rating input score 95; 28th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.7%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 20 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $460K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.