Habitat for Humanity of South Central New Jersey Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222905055
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Maple Shade, NJ, USA
Phone
8564396717
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,502,118
Expenses
$12,194,854
Assets
$10,883,698
Liabilities
$5,335,184

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lori Leonard (CEO)
  • Keith Spirgel (President)
  • Zack Warringer (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lori Leonard (CEO): $200,946 total reported compensation
  • John Garton (COO): $164,334 total reported compensation
  • Anne Fox (Chief Development): $132,675 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Habitat for Habitat of South Central Jersey, Inc. (HHSCNJ) partners with families in need and volunteers to transform lives through decent and affordable housing.

What it reported doing in 2024

Homeownership -------------Habitat SCNJ serves low and moderate-income residents throughout Burlington, Mercer, Atlantic, Camden and part of Middlesex Counties by building safe, decent, affordable homes to purchase. Eligible families demonstrate a need for housing, an ability to pay, and a willingness to partner. Once selected, they attend financial education and volunteer on the construction site and at the ReStore, contributing up to 400 "sweat equity" hours. Mortgages are no more than 30 % of household income; this includes principal, interest, taxes, and insurance. Habitat homes are deed restricted for at least 30 years to keep affordable homes available to future home buyers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 60% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -28.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $10.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $201K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.