Sugar Hill Improvement Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020487815
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Sugar Hill, NH, USA
Phone
6038238516
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Improvement, Capacity Building N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$85,000
Expenses
$32,175
Assets
$64,760

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LISSA BOISSONEAULT (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • LISSA BOISSONEAULT (PRESIDENT)
  • KATHERINE COTE (SECRETARY)
  • RICHARD BIELEFIELD (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The principal activity for which the organization is created is to maintain and improve certain land and buildings situated in the town of sugar hill, New Hampshire; to administer funds raised for such purposes; and to support other charitable and educational endeavors connected to the welfare of and for the benefit of the inhabitants of the town of sugar hill, New Hampshire.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization adminsters funds to promote book awards to high school students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.1%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 92.8%; rating input score 93

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 62.1%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.01; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.1% of revenue deployed · 92.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $30K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 35/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.