Community Partners for Affordable Housing

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931155559
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5032934038
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,379,604
Expenses
$6,738,009
Assets
$58,942,154
Liabilities
$14,933,525

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUDY WERNER (PRESIDENT, THEN BOARD MEMBER)
  • RUTH ADKINS (BOARD MEMBER, THEN PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RACHAEL DUKE (EXEC. DIRECTOR): $160,861 total reported compensation
  • JILLIAN SAURAGE FELTON (HOUSING DIRECTOR): $151,834 total reported compensation
  • AMY LAMMERS (CONTROLLER): $132,253 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cpah is focused on the development of permanent housing for low-income individuals, families and seniors in Washington and multnomah counties. Cpah also supports cpah residents with resident services, community building and skill building activities to promote housing and life success.

What it reported doing in 2025

Programs to provide housing development services to low and moderate income persons in Washington and multnomah counties.programs to provide asset management services for housing projects of low and moderate income persons in Washington and multnomah counties.programs to provide housing education and outreach to low and moderate income persons in Washington and multnomah counties.

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 - 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: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.2%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 91.3%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $46.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 61.2%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.75; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.1%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.4% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.2% of revenue deployed · 91.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $355K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.