Habitat for Humanity Grand Traverse Region
Legal name: Habitat for Humanity - Grand Traverse Region
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 382753833
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Traverse City, MI, United States
- Phone
- ReStore: 231-944-1182; Administration: 231-941-4663
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,372,302
- Expenses
- $3,855,148
- Assets
- $5,161,625
- Liabilities
- $2,286,436
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- HEATHER HUDSON (PRESIDENT)
- CHRIS MILLIRON (VICE PRESIDENT)
- WENDY IRVIN (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- WENDY IRVIN (CEO): $160,629 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Seeking to put God's love into action, Habitat for Humanity Grand Traverse Region brings people together to build sustainable homes, communities and hope. For many years people have mistakenly thought Habitat for Humanity was former US President Jimmy Carter's organization. In fact Habitat International was created in 1976 by Millard and Linda Fuller. In 1984, former President Carter began working with habitat as a public example of the importance of community support through volunteerism. His notoriety as a former President has brought significant attention to Habitat’s mission. President and Mrs. Carter were tireless advocates, active fundraisers, and some of Habitat’s best hands-on construction volunteers. In many ways, the Carters were no different than you, and the hundreds and thousands of volunteers who assist with Habitat projects ever.
What it reported doing in 2025
The creation of affordable housing for those in need and to make the issue of shelter a matter of conscience with people everywhere. During the year ended 12/31/25, six homes and fifteen home repairs were provided to families in need.
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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 51
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.8%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.34; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 41st 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: 84% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.