Inman Park Neighborhood Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581869166
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
6784881420
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$322,800
Expenses
$338,812
Assets
$542,002
Liabilities
$5,353

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KILA POSEY (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • TODD BRUNSVOLD (VP ZONING)
  • ROLAND CRAIG (VP PUBLIC SA)
  • DESIRAE DOMENICA (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote the historic nature of the inman park neighborhood through education and preservation and to promote intown living by improving the neighborhood and its surroundings

What it reported doing in 2024

Subsidize maintenance of springvale park, a large historic park at the center of the neighborhood which is integral to the historic character and design of the neighborhood. Ipna consistently funds maintenance over and above that provided by the city of atlanta for the park. The springvale park committee is also engaged in projects to restore the park to its original status as a well landscaped greenspace with a safe, clean playground and spaces for neighborhood gatherings.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.5%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 58.9%; rating input score 59; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.6; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.5% of revenue deployed · 89.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $303K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.