Montgomery County Habitat for Humanity Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 760276330
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Conroe, TX, USA
- Phone
- 9364414663
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Development, Construction, Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,883,105
- Expenses
- $4,448,935
- Assets
- $18,827,792
- Liabilities
- $3,854,812
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- VICKI JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- VICKI JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $172,798 total reported compensation
- ERIK ARMSTRONG (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $119,920 total reported compensation
- IMRAN JOSEPHI (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE/BUSINE): $97,073 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The organization is a volunteer based organization that works in partnership with god and people from all walks of life to improve the quality of life in our community by building and renovating houses so that there are simple decent affordable homes in which people can live and grow into all that god intends.
What it reported doing in 2024
Montgomery county habitat operates its habitat restore, a home improvement outlet and donation center that accepts and sells new and gently used items to the public at a reduced retail price while simultaneously reducing reusable material from going to area landfills. Items accepted and sold include rebuilding material, furniture, appliances, lighting fixtures, and other home goods. The organization diverted over 1.3 million pounds of goods from the landfill.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 74
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 59.8%; rating input score 60
- Program expense ratio: 78%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- 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: 35.4%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.23; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.8%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 59.8% of revenue deployed · 78% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $173K · 20 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.