Greater Rochester Community Health Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020465942
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Concord, NH, USA
Phone
6032256641
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$817,935
Expenses
$501,736
Assets
$24,879,895
Liabilities
$2,296,462

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Nathan Byrne (Trustee (start 9/2024))
  • Joshua Dame (Trustee (start 11/2024))
  • Kerrie Landry (Trustee)

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

To improve the health and well-being and reduce the burden of illness of persons residing in Strafford County, New Hampshire and immediately surrounding communities.(Continued on Schedule O)The Organization will seek to improve the health of its community primarily by awarding grants, by making program related investments, and by providing other financial assistance to health and social service related programs, organizations, and projects that benefit the residents of Strafford County, New Hampshire and its immediately surrounding communities in a charitable manner within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Code.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Organization is a Supporting Organization of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation (NHCF). Through its support of the NHCF, the Organization worked to improve the health and well-being and to reduce the burden of illness of persons residing in Strafford County, New Hampshire and immediately surrounding communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.4%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 59.8%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95%; rating input score 95; 42nd 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 38.7%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 49.59; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.4% of revenue deployed · 59.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $300K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 22 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 22 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.