Brookline Greenspace Alliance Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 043021928
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Brookline Village, MA, USA
- Phone
- 6174772777
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Beautification and Aesthetics
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $43,627
- Expenses
- $40,715
- Assets
- $311,510
- Liabilities
- $30,125
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Sean Lynn-Jones (President & Director)
- Ernest Cook (Vice President and Director)
- Marian Lazar (Marian Lazar, Vice President-Publications & Director)
People named in this filing
- Sean Lynn-Jones (President & Director)
- Ernest Cook (Vice President and Director)
- Marian Lazar (Marian Lazar, Vice President-Publications & Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To preserve, protect and enhance the parks and open spaces in Brookline, MA through outreach, education and advocacy. Our goals are to increase citizen involvement in the protection and stewardship of Brookline's parks, sanctuaries, playing fields and street trees; improve management and maintenance of open space; and to work with the Town government and citizen groups to protect significant remaining open spaces.
What it reported doing in 2025
Donations to honor Tree Warden Thomas Brady ($500), Brookline.News ($5,000), Emerald Necklace Conservancy $1,500), Studios Without Walls ($500), Muddy Water Initiative water level study ($1,500), Fisher Hill Reservoir Park bioswale plantings ($2,965)
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 61
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 58.6%; rating input score 59
- Program expense ratio: 50.9%; rating input score 51
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.7%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.65; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 58.6% of revenue deployed · 50.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $21K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 20 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.