Spark Academy

Legal name: Spark Academy of Advanced Technologies

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841795937
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Manchester, NH, US
Phone
(603) 945-9151
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,542,316
Expenses
$1,723,827
Assets
$997,823
Liabilities
$241,450

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN TUTTLE (DIRECTOR): $160,458 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To empower students with opportunities to master technical skills, both practical and theoretical, in the context of a high school and early college program that emphasizes the dignity and value of work. Students will discover an appreciation for the power of the sciences combined with an understanding of the humanities. They will develop into innovative problem solvers ready to enter the technical careers of their choice upon graduation or through further study.

What it reported doing in 2024

To provide our students with a high school and early college education based on problem-solving, real-world experience, and a sound work ethic. They will cultivate their skills, ingenuity, and character, ready to challenge the future with confidence, courage, and curiosity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 65% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.2%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 59.2%; rating input score 59
  • 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: 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.8%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 33.5% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 66.2% of revenue deployed · 59.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.