The Equity Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
815394158
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
6154920061
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,105,581
Expenses
$2,054,213
Assets
$3,591,863
Liabilities
$22,115

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • TEQUILA JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DI): $167,905 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Founded in january 2017, the equity alliance (tea) mission is to unapologetically build independent black political and economic power. We educate, empower, and mobilize black people to take action and keep our government in check.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, the equity alliance (tea) continued to build people power through a record 490 events aimed at advancing advocacy, voter engagement, and community education. Across our c3 and c4 activities, 925 new individuals who joined teas growing network of changemakers. Tea generated 6,426 event sign-ups in 2024, connecting thousands of community members to opportunities for action. We recruited these volunteers at college campuses, community meetings, public events, online, and over the phone. Throughout the year, volunteers demonstrated leadership by attending public meetings such as school board and city council sessions, participating in rallies and protests, sharing information via social media, passing out educational materials, and staffing informational tables at community gatherings.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.3%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 72%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.4%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.75; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.4% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.3% of revenue deployed · 72% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $168K · 2 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.