Habitat for Humanity of Northern Columbiana County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341715894
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Salem, OH, USA
Phone
3303371003
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$156,580
Expenses
$172,522
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Barbara Loudon (Executive Director)
  • Dave Bedell (President)
  • Karen Penner (First Vice President)
  • Roger Converse (Past President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Barbara Loudon (Executive Director): $43,122 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See 4a below

What it reported doing in 2016

The organization obtains properties and then builds or improves the homes using volunteer labor and donated materials when possible. Once built or refurbished, the properties are sold at cost to an area low-income family that has been carefully screened as to need, ability to pay, and willingness to partner with the organization. The family must contribute volunteer time to refurbishing or building the property. When the home is sold at cost, the organization creates a 0% mortgage with the family that is then repaid on a monthly basis. The organization accumulates the cost of each property and shows the accumulated cost on its balance sheet. The organization also provides financial counseling to the recipient family and provides follow up financial counseling to previous recipient families.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.2%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -24.5% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -24.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85% of revenue deployed · 75.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $131K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $43K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule M noncash within contributions did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.