Habitat for Humanity for Georgetown County Sc Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570913768
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Georgetown, SC, USA
Phone
8435465685
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,329,043
Expenses
$1,273,899
Assets
$4,071,795
Liabilities
$143,454

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JACOB RIGOPOULOS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LAURA GRASSLER (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAURA GRASSLER (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $107,227 total reported compensation
  • JACOB RIGOPOULOS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $54,253 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, habitat for humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope.

What it reported doing in 2024

Construction and homeownership - to construct simple, affordable, and energy-efficient homes for qualifying families. Construction is completed primarily through the use of volunteer labor and donated materials. Also provides family and mortgage services which administer the application process for program participation and provide case management support to approved applicants.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 3rd 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.1%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.2; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.1% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.