Habitat for Humanity Fresno Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770076649
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fresno, CA, USA
Phone
5592374102
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,288,391
Expenses
$3,912,694
Assets
$6,442,368
Liabilities
$5,183,812

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ashley Hedemann (CEO)
  • Jim Tienken (President)
  • Feleena Sutton (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ashley Hedemann (CEO): $148,929 total reported compensation
  • Stacey Simpson (CFO): $109,223 total reported compensation
  • Ricky O'Daniel (Construction Dir): $105,100 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Habitat's mission is to put god's love in to action in fresno county by bringing people together to build homes, communities, and hope.

What it reported doing in 2024

New Home Construction Program: The completion and sale of 3 single-family homes. Construction was 75-80% complete on one additional single-family home, which was sold in the next fiscal year. Our investment in these projects is supported by a self-help building model that relies on community funding as well as community volunteers. Our hope is to instill pride in these neighborhoods and bring positive changes to the surrounding area. Our model allows us to create a positive alignment between quality construction and ability to purchase. Our new homes are built in partnership with qualified low-income families and employing local sub-contractors. Partner families and community volunteers are trained in basic construction safety and skills.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 74.4%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.65; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.8; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 74.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $149K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.