Tennessee Society of Professional Engineers

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
626041550
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
6152422486
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$188,584
Expenses
$192,613
Assets
$158,846
Liabilities
$42,355

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK HARRISON (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • AARON CRENSHAW (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • HARRISON TURNER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOSH COLE (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • PETER WROBLEWSKI (DIRECTOR)
  • TIM HERNDON (DIRECTOR)
  • MARK HARRISON (PRESIDENT ELECT)

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

Tspe promotes the ethical and competent practice of engineering and advocates licensure, serves the needs of and enhances the image and well being of all engineering professionals and promotes the involvement of engineers in society.

What it reported doing in 2024

Promotion of public welfare - tspe sponsors engineers day on the hill, which is attended by about 40 members. The purpose of the event was to educate members of the tn general assembly on the impact of proposed legislation on the public health, safety, and welfare. In 2025, the event was cancelled due to winter weath and tspe sent information to legislators electronically. In addition, tspes contract advocate monitored and lobbied the state legislators on these issues throughout the legislative session. The executive director also attended and participated in meetings of the tn state board of architectural and engineering examiners.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 88% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.

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: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 0

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: 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: -2.1%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.