New Hampshire Humanities Council
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 020317350
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Concord, NH, USA
- Phone
- 6032244071
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,680,077
- Expenses
- $1,327,412
- Assets
- $6,719,860
- Liabilities
- $45,605
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- MICHAEL HALEY GOLDMAN (EXECUTIVE DI): $132,948 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Since 1974, New Hampshire hummanities has brought the power of ideas to people of all walks of life, in every corner of the state. Our programs stimulate minds, strengthen community bonds, bolster struggling organizations, and contribute to our state's civic wealth. We connect the people of nh to culture, history, places, ideas, and to one another. We get nh citizens talking about critical issues such as immigration, the role of religon in american life, and comtemporary constitutional challenges. We invite citizens to reason together in facilitated groups, to learn from and listen to one another. We offer professional development that strengthens the teaching of humanities, k-12 and through connections we support adult liteacy and english language acquisition, welcoming new readers and new americans into a world of books, ideas, and opportunity. Nhhc updated their mission statement in december 2022: New Hampshire humanities connects people and ideas by delivering and supporting statew
What it reported doing in 2024
New Hampshire humanities' connections program creates book discussion series designed to promote english language skills, cultivate conversations about ideas, reinforce family literacy, and support a culture of reading to more than 600 adult learners across the state of New Hampshire each year. Using a range of childrens and adult literature, connections provides accessible book discussions for individuals with disabilities, refugees, general adult basic education students, and incarcerated parents. More importantly, it allows participants to see their own stories in literature, to learn about perspectives different from their own, and provides the opportunity to travel to worlds real or imagined through literature.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 53
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 74
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62.1%; rating input score 62
- Program expense ratio: 52.4%; rating input score 52
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.35 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 94.6%; rating input score 95; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 21%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.06; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 62.1% of revenue deployed · 52.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $696K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $133K · 19 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 5 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.