Habitat for Humanity Stanislaus County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770233512
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021
Location
Modesto, CA, USA
Phone
2095754585
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,686,432
Expenses
$1,136,741
Assets
$6,675,896
Liabilities
$1,344,568

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LISA MANTARRO MOORE (Past President)
  • JOHN CURTIS (Vice President)
  • JOHN SIMVOULAKIS (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANITA HELLAM (Executive Dir.): $111,779 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of habitat for humanity, stanislaus is to mobilize volunteers and partners in providing opportunities for families to achieve affordable and sustainable home ownership as a means of breaking the cycle of poverty and strengthening communities. We are focused on expanding and preserving the affordable housing stock. We not only build and sell homes to qualified buyers, we also perform critical home repairs for eligible low income households.

What it reported doing in 2021

We work to expand and preserve the affordable housing stock by building and selling homes to qualified buyers and by performing critical home repairs for eligible low income households.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 21.5%; rating input score 21
  • Program expense ratio: 44%; rating input score 44
  • Fundraising efficiency: $399.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 57.7%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.87; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 21.5% of revenue deployed · 44% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $501K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2012 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.