Noah: Neighborhood of Affordable Housing
Legal name: Noah Community Development Fund Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 043554045
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2009
- Location
- East Boston, MA, USA
- Phone
- +1 (617) 567.5882
- Rating
- 63
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Development, Construction, Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $385
- Expenses
- $2,293
- Assets
- $907,353
- Liabilities
- $189,531
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAVID BRYANT (PRESIDENT)
- CELSA MORENO-BARKER (VICE PRESIDENT)
- PHILIP GIFFEE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- PHILIP GIFFEE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $207,820 total reported compensation
- VINNY QUALTIERI (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE & ADMIN): $145,160 total reported compensation
- LINDA MILLER-FOSTER (DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION AND FUNDRAISING): $134,120 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
NOAH, a community development corporation, promotes equity, community cohesion, environmental justice, and economic resiliency. We increase access to affordable housing, create social and economic opportunities, and empower residents to be leaders of change. NOAH works towards achieving the National Housing Goal of 'a decent home and suitable living environment' for as many individuals and families in need as it can, both locally and regionally.
What it reported doing in 2025
Provides loans and counseling for home ownership to low to moderate income residents.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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 - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.1%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 15%; rating input score 15
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: -495.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 395.71; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2,730.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -22.1% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 89.1% of revenue deployed · 15% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $343 in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $208K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 17 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 15/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.