Habitat for Humanity of Berks County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232500851
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Reading, PA, USA
Phone
6103733439
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,294,025
Expenses
$3,105,426
Assets
$1,445,337
Liabilities
$600,783

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICHARD EHST (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFFER JIMENEZ (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TIMOTHY DALEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TIMOTHY DALEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $164,407 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To create affordable home ownership opportunities for moderate income families. Habitat for Humanity of Berks County’s Board of Directors and staff are working together to reinvent the strategic planning behind the organization. With a Board of Directors composed of professionals with diverse backgrounds, we are formulating a plan to raise funds together and positively impact HFHBC’s financial support and awareness in the community. Meet The Staff. Meet The Staff Subscribe Today!

What it reported doing in 2024

In carrying out its mission, the organization constructs and rehabilitates homes for prospective owners. These projects provide affordable housing for low income families and the work is performed by volunteers and recipients. Each prospective homeowner must meet certain qualifications, including a specified number of "sweat equity hours" in order to have a transfer/sale occur. During fy24/25, habitat's housing projects included the continuation of the buttonwood gateway, miltimore street housing project, with two houses transferred to homeowners. The organization also has continued its partnership with other organizations to assist with remodeling projects.

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

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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.2%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 84%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.7%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.42; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 79.2% of revenue deployed · 84% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $164K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.