New England Educational Assessment Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043380742
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Durham, NH, USA
Phone
9782773775
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$42,355
Expenses
$37,035
Assets
$47,576
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Carina Self (President)
  • Mamta Saxena (Vice President)
  • Craig Pepin (Immediate Past President)

People named in this filing

  • Carina Self (President)
  • Mamta Saxena (Vice President)
  • Emilie Clucas Leaderman (Program Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Higher education educational assessment conferences and networking opportunities for higher education faculty members and administrators to improve assessment at their institutions

What it reported doing in 2024

NEean provides conferences and support to all institutions of higher education in New England, as well as any other interested states on the process and implementation of successful assessment of their programs, departments, and institutions. These events include an in-person forum, virtual conferences and webinars.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.9%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 42.2%; rating input score 42

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.6%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.28; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.4% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.3% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.9% of revenue deployed · 42.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $16K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 37/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.