Rutherford County Habitat for Humanity
Legal name: Rutherford County Habitat for Humanity Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 561581336
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Forest City, NC, USA
- Phone
- 828.248.3178
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,630,392
- Expenses
- $2,822,457
- Assets
- $5,976,829
- Liabilities
- $1,025,894
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- THAMAR ANTONIE (PRESIDENT)
- DOUG BARRICK (VICE PRESIDENT)
- KIM FREEMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KIM FREEMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $90,845 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 God4s love into action, Rutherford County Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope. By engaging families as partners, Habitat seeks to build not only homes, but also strength, self-reliance, and stability. Through affordable homeownership, volunteer support, and community partnerships, we help families create brighter futures while strengthening our communities. Together, we are working toward our vision of **a world where everyone has a decent place to live. Our Mission and Values. Habitat for Humanity of Rutherford County builds safe, decent homes and helps families achieve strength, stability, and self-reliance through shelter. Our Mission Seeking to put God’s love into action, Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope.
What it reported doing in 2024
Rutherford county habitat for humanity, inc. Is an ecumenical christian organization whose purpose is to construct, renovate or otherwise make available housing to persons who need it without restriction as to race, nationality or creed and to offer such through an interest-free mortgage to the recipient and without profit to habitat. Consideration for the handicapped and elderly in site selection and architectural design is included in this purpose.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 70
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 61.2%; rating input score 61
- Program expense ratio: 78.4%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: $216.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd 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: 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 22.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.12; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 18.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 61.2% of revenue deployed · 78.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 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: 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.