Midland County Habitat for Humanity
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 382884074
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Midland, MI, USA
- Phone
- (989) 496-0900
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Development, Construction, Management
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,939,461
- Expenses
- $1,295,190
- Assets
- $2,950,097
- Liabilities
- $825,341
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Mike Williams (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Jennifer Chappel (Executive Dir.): $117,940 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. Midland County Habitat for Humanity (MCHFH) was incorporated as a Habitat for Humanity International affiliate in 1988 and built its first home the following year. Its purpose is to provide adequate and affordable housing for Midland County families in need. Using volunteer labor and donations, MCHFH builds simple houses and sells them, providing an affordable, 30 year mortgage. MCHFH holds the mortgage on the homes until it is paid off by the Partner Family. MCHFH, like its parent organization, is based on the principle of Christian partnership, which brings together people of all races, nationalities, religions and economic levels, to help those in need. Building community is as important.
What it reported doing in 2024
The Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative/Rock the Block was designed to help US Affiliates as they work to transform neighborhoods using a holistic approach. Habitat affiliates are joining residents, nonprofits, businesses, local governments and communities of faith to create and implement a shared vision of revitalization. Neighborhood revitalization initiative affiliates tailor work to meet the special needs of each neighborhood. Affiliates, in partnership with community organizations and agencies, will decide what work needs to be carried out in their community. A wide array of housing service can be tapped to help transform communities in need, such as: New, energy-efficient house construction, Rehabilitation of vacant and foreclosed properties, House repairs for existing low income homeowners, through a brush with kindness and critical home repairs, Weatherization to make existing houses more energy efficient and affordable. During 2024-2025 the organization worked in the city of Coleman and served 10 homeowners.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 - 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: 92
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 68
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 44.9%; rating input score 45
- Program expense ratio: 67.4%; rating input score 67
- Fundraising efficiency: $97.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th 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: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 33.2%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.28; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.1%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 44.9% of revenue deployed · 67.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $873K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $118K · 13 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $234K reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.