Cumberland County Habitat for Humanity

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
621662475
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Crossville, TN, United States
Phone
931-484-4565
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,556,308
Expenses
$904,073
Assets
$3,681,772
Liabilities
$32,546

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID BRENNER (PRESIDENT)
  • JONATHAN MILLER (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • KEITH MILLS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • VANESSA PETTY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • VANESSA PETTY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $57,984 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Seeking to put God’s love into action, Cumberland County Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope. Habitat for Humanity is an independent, nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing ministry that partners with people of all beliefs. Cumberland County Habitat for Humanity has been an affiliate of Habitat for Humanity International since 1985. Cumberland County Habitat for Humanity partners with families in Cumberland County to help them build a place they can call home. Habitat homeowners help build their own homes alongside volunteers and pay an affordable mortgage. With your support, Habitat homeowners achieve the strength, stability and independence they need to build a better life for themselves and for their families. Navigation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide new housing for economically disadvantaged families.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.6%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.9%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.07; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 57.6% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $744K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $58K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.