Youthwell New Hampshire
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 932298370
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Nashua, NH, USA
- Phone
- 6035950812
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $207,418
- Expenses
- $217,727
- Assets
- $22,228
- Liabilities
- $378
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Tricia Brannen (Executive Director/ Board Secretary)
Highest reported compensation
- Tricia Brannen (Executive Director/ Board Secretary): $83,997 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To positively impact and improve the mental health and well-being of young people in New Hampshire by funding youth mental health programs, services, and initiatives; developing and nurturing partnerships with other youth serving organizations to promote and advance their mission related to youth mental health; supporting advocacy for effective, sustainable policies, practices, and relevant legislation.
What it reported doing in 2025
YouthWell New Hampshire priortizes youth mental health by supporting advocacy for effective, sustainable policies and practices statewide. The organization monitors relevant legislation and elevates youth perspectives to ensure the needs of young people are represented in policy and community decision-making. Through its YouthWell Voices initiative, YouthWell NH engages with students from across New Hampshire to collaborate on stigma reduction, mental health awareness, and peer-driven advocacy in schools and communities. Participants access training, connect with advocacy partners, and engage in activities such as legislative outreach, public speaking, and community education. The program is youth-led, with participants shaping priorities and initiatives to reflect the needs of their peers.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 75% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 79
- Sustainability: 19
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 70.1%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 66.8%; rating input score 67
- Fundraising efficiency: $51.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 51st 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; 64th 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: 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: -5%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 38.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 41.4% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 70.1% of revenue deployed · 66.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $145K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $84K · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 8 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.