Habitat for Humanity
Legal name: Habitat for Humanity International Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 911914868
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Americus, Georgia, USA
- Phone
- 229-410-7540
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- International Relief
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $370,010,910
- Expenses
- $370,740,903
- Assets
- $759,980,018
- Liabilities
- $324,728,931
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
56 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JONATHAN RECKFORD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- JONATHAN RECKFORD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $592,703 total reported compensation
- TOLLI LOVE (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $369,566 total reported compensation
- ADRIENNE GOOLSBY (SVP, U.S. AND CANADA): $343,903 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
See schedule o
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 97
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 77.3%; rating input score 77
- Program expense ratio: 77.4%; rating input score 77
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 91%; rating input score 91; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 95.5%; rating input score 95; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.2%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.05; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 77.3% of revenue deployed · 77.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 22 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $286.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $593K · 56 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $32.3M reported
- Consistency: 43 of 45 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1352 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 750 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.