Habitat for Humanity of Okeechobee County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061652272
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2014, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Okeechobee, FL, USA
Phone
8633571371
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Expenses
$7,188
Assets
$364,284

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ED THORNTON (V. PRESIDENT)
  • DOC THRIFT (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • LINDA WILSON (SECRETARY)
  • FRANCES SYFRETT (DIRECTOR)
  • ED THORNTON (V. PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission as a group is to work with one another in partnership with god and people everywhere, from all walks of life, to develop communities with people in need by building and renovating houses, so that there are decent houses in decent communities in which every person can experience god's love and can live and grow into all that god intends.

What it reported doing in 2017

Habitat for humanity of okeechobee county, inc. Is an ecumenical christian not-for-profit organization whose purposes are to partner with habitat programs worldwide in building decent, affordable housing, and to associate with other organizations tht have a kindred purpose. Habitat's goal is to eliminate poverty housing in okeechobee county.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: 96.1%; rating input score 96

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 50.68; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -85.1% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -25% per year; rating input score 0; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 4 of 4 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2015 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.