New Hampshire Women's Foundation
Legal name: New Hampshire Women's Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 020495092
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Concord, NH, US
- Phone
- (603) 226-3355
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,061,095
- Expenses
- $963,889
- Assets
- $2,489,148
- Liabilities
- $37,155
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TANNA CLEWS (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- TANNA CLEWS (CEO): $158,664 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 New Hampshire Women’s Foundation invests in opportunity and equality for women and girls in the Granite State through research, advocacy, education, grantmaking and philanthropy.
What it reported doing in 2024
The New Hampshire women's foundation invests in opportunity and equality for women and girls in the granite state through research, education, advocacy and grantmaking. The foundation's grantmaking program awards grants to organizations serving women and girls in every county in New Hampshire. The research program produces two flagship publications which are the most comprehensive data on women and girls in the granite state. The advocacy program includes advocating for legislation and policies which positively impact women and girls, and the foundation's women run program is a nonpartisan program empowering and training women to run for office.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 72%; rating input score 72
- Program expense ratio: 77.7%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: $18.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 74.9%; rating input score 75; 33rd 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 9.2%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.58; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 16.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 72% of revenue deployed · 77.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $749K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 18 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 15 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.