Habitat for Humanity International INC
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 582321199
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Winder, GA, USA
- Phone
- 7707719575
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $270,917
- Expenses
- $281,981
- Assets
- $1,469,519
- Liabilities
- $5,381
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Dale Sauls (Executive Director)
- Derrick Sparks (President)
- Danny Mobley (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Anna Lee Stone (Director)
- Steffanie Sorrells (Director)
- Power Evans (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Barrow County Habitat for Humanity is part of a global, nonprofit housing organization operated on Christian principles that seeks to put Gods love into action by building homes, communities and hope.
What it reported doing in 2025
Barrow County Habitat for Humanity has an open-door policy: All who believe that everyone needs a decent, affordable place to live are welcome to help with the work, regardless of race, religion, age, gender, political views or any of the other distinctions that too often divide people. In short, Habitat welcomes volunteers and supporters from all backgrounds and also serves people in need of decent housing regardless of race or religion. As a matter of policy, Habitat for Humanity International and its affiliated organizations do not proselytize. This means that Habitat will not offer assistance on the expressed or implied condition that people must either adhere to or convert to a particular faith, or listen and respond to messaging designed to induce conversion to a particular faith.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 43
- Transparency & Controls: 93
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 43.6%; rating input score 44
- Program expense ratio: 57.1%; rating input score 57
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 91.2%; rating input score 91; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -4.1%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.21; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 43.6% of revenue deployed · 57.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $161K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2013 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.