Habitat for Humanity of St. Charles County

Legal name: Habitat for Humanity of St Charles County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431798488
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St. Peters, MO, United States
Phone
(636) 978-5712
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,154,709
Expenses
$1,430,462
Assets
$4,972,640
Liabilities
$2,813,582

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVE FRICKE (PRESIDENT)
  • SANDRA MERANDA (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RICK HYDE (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • MICHELLE WOODS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHELLE WOODS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $94,354 total reported compensation
  • STEFANI DRURY (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $40,349 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 St. Charles brings people together to build homes, communities, and hope.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mission: habitat for humanity of st. Charles county is dedicated to building and renovating homes in st. Charles county in partnership with hard-working, low-income families. During the current fiscal year, the organization developed the infastructure on the property on 11 acreas for our next homes to be built. After a home is sold to a family, habitat for humanity of st. Charles county provides a non-interest-bearing mortgage and requires monthly payments from the homeowners. Each mortgage receivable is discounted based on the mortgage discount rate established by habitat for humanity international, inc. In the year the mortgage is originated. Also, the organization provides one-on-one coaching to the families for financial and homeownership training through their family advocate program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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

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: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 66.3%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th 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: 99.8%; rating input score 100; 50th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.48; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 66.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $948K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $94K · 21 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $263K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.