Iowa Heartland Habitat for Humanity
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 421350378
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jul 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2012
- Location
- Waterloo, IA, United States
- Phone
- (319) 235-9946
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Housing Development, Construction, Management
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,837,004
- Expenses
- $3,592,889
- Assets
- $13,168,694
- Liabilities
- $1,155,739
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- NATALIE BURRIS (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- ALISON PARRISH (EXECUTIVE DI): $135,964 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 Gods love into action, Iowa Heartland Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope. Iowa Heartland Habitat relies on contributions from individuals, corporations, and groups to build and repair homes in our community. **90% of all funds raised go directly to our mission**. Gifts made from each county support the work of that county. What is Habitat’s non-proselytizing policy? Habitat for Humanity does not require or encourage religious participation as a condition for assistance. We do not partner with individuals or organizations that insist on proselytizing as part of their work with us.
What it reported doing in 2024
Habitat partners with low to moderate income homeowners to perform critical repairs and modifications on their homes. Habitat carries the cost of purchased materials as work in process inventory until completion of the home project. Upon completion of the home repairs or modification, work in process is then charged to program expense. Construction labor is provided by habitat construction staff, volunteers, and contractors. No value is recognized in the accounts for labor contributed by habitat volunteers.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 57
- Transparency & Controls: 95
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 41.6%; rating input score 42
- Program expense ratio: 79%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $22.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 38.4%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.67; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 41.6% of revenue deployed · 79% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $136K · 15 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $652K reported
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.