Habitat for Humanity of NC Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 271296717
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
- Location
- Raleigh, NC, USA
- Phone
- 9192588685
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,898,808
- Expenses
- $1,140,774
- Assets
- $4,077,315
- Liabilities
- $145,496
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Marlowe Foster (Executive Director Through Feb 2025)
- Paul Reeves (Executive Director Effective Feb 2025)
Highest reported compensation
- Marlowe Foster (Executive Director Through Feb 2025): $74,231 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 Gods love into action, Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope to realize our vision of a world where everyone has a decent place to live. Habitat for Humanity of North Carolina adheres to a strict non-proselytizing policy and will not base an offer of assistance on religious beliefs
What it reported doing in 2024
Habitat for Humanity of North Carolina partners with local affiliates to expand access to safe and affordable housing. Through the homeownership program, qualified families purchase homes at affordable mortgage rates - often below market and sometimes interest-free - with payments that never exceed 30 of household income. In a typical year Habitat will build and sell 300 affordable homes across North Carolina. The home preservation program helps low- to moderate-income homeowners remain in their homes by funding repairs that address health, safety, and code issues. In a typical year Habitat will complete 1,000 home repairs across North Carolina. In addition, Habitat NC provides affiliates with financial support and best practice training to strengthen their capacity to deliver these services. In a typical year, this support is provided by direct grants, pass-through grants and financial partnerships such as third-party mortgage origination
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 77% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 82
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 27.2%; rating input score 27
- Program expense ratio: 89%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $96.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 95.1%; rating input score 95; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: 70.7%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.57; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 27.2% of revenue deployed · 89% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $74K · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 11 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: Mission deployment rate scored 27/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.