Habitat for Humanity of Greater Chattanooga Area
Legal name: Habitat for Humanity of Greater Chattanooga Area Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 621260347
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Chattanooga, TN, United States
- Phone
- (423) 756-0507
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Development, Construction, Management
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,316,082
- Expenses
- $2,903,087
- Assets
- $7,797,964
- Liabilities
- $501,586
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JENS CHRISTENSEN (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- JENS CHRISTENSEN (PRESIDENT & CEO): $179,789 total reported compensation
- BRANT MASON (CFO): $72,039 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 God’s love into action, Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope.
What it reported doing in 2024
The third largest portion of hfh-gc's program covers the process of recruiting and identifying potential habitat partner families, and working with them through the habitat application process, a comprehensive home ownership education program which includes courses on home maintenance and on financial management, and follow up support once they are living in their new home. This support spans the 30+ year life of their habitat zero-interest mortgage.
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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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 some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 73
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62.6%; rating input score 63
- Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
- Fundraising efficiency: $29.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th 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: 9 of 9 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: 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: 32.7%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.69; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.7%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 62.6% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $180K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $134K reported
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.