Habitat for Humanity of Frederick County, Maryland
Legal name: Habitat for Humanity of Frederick County Md
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521820647
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Frederick, MD, United States
- Phone
- 301-698-2449
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,119,360
- Expenses
- $2,295,629
- Assets
- $5,088,361
- Liabilities
- $2,873,472
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SCOTT MCCASKILL (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- ERIC C ANDERSON (EXECUTIVE DI): $114,746 total reported compensation
- DENIA N LEISHMAN (FINANCE DIRE): $69,583 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. Love All Our Neighbors Our Faith is the foundation for our Mission, and we choose housing as the means to put our faith into action because housing serves as a foundation for the health, education, well-being, equity and wealth of families and communities. The process of bringing people together to expand decent housing sparks change, and we joyfully invite supporters, employees, advocates and partners of all backgrounds – of all faiths and no faith – to our work. Because we believe that everyone deserves a decent place to live, we embrace diversity and work toward buildin.
What it reported doing in 2024
Habitat for humanity's neighborhood revitalization program seeks to serve the community by providing safe and affordable housing to the local area. This is based on a framework that focuses on first understanding the concerns of community and habitat stakeholders, and then empowering these groups to lead the projects they want to accomplish. In addition to involving homeowners, volunteers and habitat staff members through a variety of communication channels, this also involves partnerships with community nonprofits, faith-based institutions, schools, new and longstanding neighborhood coalitions, local, county, state and federal government, as well as additional community leaders, to achieve their goals. In order for qualified individuals in the community to know about the services offered through habitat for humanity of frederick county, md and associated community partnerships, these communication channels include attendance at local events, print and verbal advertising, community-type forums, social media sharing and monitoring, legislative advocacy, etc. Once a client or project has been identified as requiring support, habitat relies heavily on volunteers to physically perform the work needed to build or repair the homes or complete the assigned projects. Therefore, it is necessary to recruit, screen and train local volunteers. Together, this neighborhood revitalization program works simultaneously with the other necessary parts of the organization to accomplish its vision of a world where everyone has a decent place to live.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78.3%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 74.4%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: $15.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -8.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.22; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.56; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 78.3% of revenue deployed · 74.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $115K · 13 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $100K reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.