Education Alliance for New Hampshire

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020524025
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Concord, NH, USA
Phone
6032232302
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,706,774
Expenses
$5,878,909
Assets
$11,994,463
Liabilities
$11,604,022

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Deborah Scire (Past Executive Director)
  • Mica Stark (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Deborah Scire (Past Executive Director): $210,822 total reported compensation
  • Stephanie Lesperance (Chief Strategy Officer): $140,072 total reported compensation
  • Jillian Oates (Chief Operating Officer): $121,412 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 mission of Education Alliance for New Hampshire is to be a catalyst to integrate community service and civic responsibility throughout the academic and student life goals of its member institutions.

What it reported doing in 2024

The NH-SFEC leverages proven, evidence-based frameworks and programs to build capacity of local educators and families, elevate family voice in educational policies, programs, and decision making, and form a statewide infrastructure for sustained family partnership in education. Specifically, using Dr. Karen Mapp's dual capacity framework for family engagement, we work both locally and at the statewide level to help schools, families, and communities build the essential conditions for success. Based on decades of research, Dr. Joyce Epstein's 6 types of involvement for comprehensive family, school, and community partnerships serves to guide our program development with both schools and families.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 93% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.3%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.1%; rating input score 91; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -3%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.04; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.97; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.3% of revenue deployed · 87.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $211K · 22 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $134K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.