Habitat for Humanity of Whitley County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
351888674
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Columbia City, IN, USA
Phone
2607502731
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$186,181
Expenses
$168,784
Assets
$1,010,607
Liabilities
$1,010,119

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BELINDA HAWN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CARL SILER (EXECUTIVE DI): $42,827 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Seeking to put god's love into action, habitat for humanity of whitley county brings people together to build homes, communities and hope. To better serve individuals in their quest for decent, affordable & energy efficient home-ownership opportunities, habitat for humanity of whitley county will continue to seek any and all viable opportunities to provide the people of whitley county with more and better options. This may be directly through habitat whitley and/or it may be in partnerships with other organizations. We aim to make each home visitable and/or accessible in recognition of the fact that many disabilities and/or health problems consistently occur among low-income families as they age.

What it reported doing in 2014

Another program offered by habitat for humanity is "homeownership education and financial literacy" training. This program benefited families through a state certified Indiana foreclosure prevention network and hardest hit fund agency that serves whitley, kosciuscko, and allen counties. Through the Indiana foreclosure prevention network, Indiana homeowners may access "building the bridge to recovery", which is a program that will help an estimated 16,000 families who are at high risk of default or foreclosure.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 60% for direct work, and 40% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 90.8%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.3%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.99; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -83.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -71.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 34.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.6% of revenue deployed · 90.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $153K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $43K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2014
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.