Hannah Grimes Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020519934
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Keene, NH, USA
Phone
6033525063
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,677,270
Expenses
$1,458,440
Assets
$3,263,350
Liabilities
$619,795

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEE FITZGERALD (PRESIDENT)
  • RACHEL ESCHLE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARY ANN KRISTIANSEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JULIANNA DODSON (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY ANN KRISTIANSEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $230,401 total reported compensation
  • JULIANNA DODSON (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $14,737 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 hannah grimes center supports small businesses, nonprofits, and community initiatives through year-round programs that build skills, reduce start-up barriers, and strengthen the regional economy. Programs include business labs, coaching, workshops, and networking events; access to affordable office, coworking, and incubator space; and connections to professional mentors and community partners. The center also leads radically rural, a national platform offering summits, trainings, and peer learning that promote innovation and collaboration in rural communities locally and across the country.

What it reported doing in 2024

To provide training and support services to small businesses in the monadnock region of New Hampshire. Services provided by the center include courses, programs, workshops, and projects to promote education and infrastructure for local businesses and facilities that permit new businesses to operate without high overhead costs by pooling resources and providing low-cost space to increase the number of successful business start-ups in the monadnock region.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 82%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $63.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.24; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.8%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.8% of revenue deployed · 82% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $230K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.