New Hampshire College & University Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020271139
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Concord, NH, USA
Phone
6032254199
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,749,995
Expenses
$1,776,315
Assets
$1,388,615
Liabilities
$224,348

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

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

Highest reported compensation

  • Deborah Scire (Past Executive Director): $210,822 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

A consortium of public & private higher education institutions dedicated to collaborative efforts that enhance educational opportunities for students attending our member institutions.

What it reported doing in 2024

Sponsor numerous collaborative programming on behalf of member colleges and universities throughout the state including: staffing of admission, career services, libraries and academic affairs committees; sponsorship of an annual high school guidance counselor tour of the member campuses; coordinate interlibrary loan program to share library resources; sponsor and serve as administrator for the New Hampshire forum on the future. Administer and supervise gear up federal funds designed to significantly increase the number of underrepresented students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. Staff assists in creating pathways to access higher education that will ease transition from high school to postsecondary education and increase retention.Our NH Scholars initiative aims to increase access to higher education opportunities for students in the state thereby increasing postsecondary attendance and college success. Our programming builds the capacity of school districts to enhance personalized learning, individualized progress and encourages students to take more rigorous course work.

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 85% 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. 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: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 72.1%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.5%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.6% of revenue deployed · 72.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $211K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.