Habitat for Humanity of Miami and Shelby Counties, Ohio
Legal name: Habitat for Humanity International Hfh of Miami and Shelby Counties Oh
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 311352522
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Troy, OH, USA
- Phone
- (937) 332-3763
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,453,215
- Expenses
- $1,441,115
- Assets
- $2,564,531
- Liabilities
- $731,643
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MIKE LOCHARD (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- SCOTT BARR (EXECUTIVE DI): $119,737 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. Habitat for Humanity of Miami and Shelby Counties, Ohio is an affiliate organization under the umbrella of Habitat for Humanity International. Habitat believes that everyone deserves a decent place to live. Our mission is to put God’s love into action by bringing people together to build homes, communities, and hope. We work under the leadership of a local board of trustees to partner with people in our area to help them build or improve a place they can call home. Habitat for Humanity of Miami and Shelby Counties works toward affordable housing for all in many ways. We operate two ReStores in Troy and Sidney which sell new and gently used home repair materials as a way to fund our programmi.
What it reported doing in 2024
Habitat for humanity of miami and shelby counties Ohio, inc. Operates throughout miami and shelby counties with a goal to eliminate poverty housing within every community. The affliate will accomplish this goal by providing an affordable homeownership program and home repair program to low income families in need.
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: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 86.1%; rating input score 86
- Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.78; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.3%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 86.1% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 18 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.