Lena Park Community Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042531287
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dorchester, MA, USA
Phone
6175338133
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,116,859
Expenses
$1,397,178
Assets
$9,046,973
Liabilities
$2,372,252

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CURTIS SANTOS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CURTIS SANTOS (PRESIDENT)
  • VERONICA WILLIAMS (TREASURER)
  • PATRICIA BRINSON (CLERK (UNTIL 9/2024))

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 provide integrated programs and services which will strengthen families and build healthy communities for the residents of boston.

What it reported doing in 2024

Affordable housing and community engagement - to maintain housing solutions for deteriorating housing sectors and the decreasing supply of affordable housing.the summer youth program at lena park served 50-60 teens between the ages of 13-20. The eight-week program included workforce development training and workshops, recreational sports activities, and boston fire dept teen academy. The teens participated in planning and executing the annual summer picnic for our resident community. These activities gave the teens an opportunity to work and learn life skills in a safe and supportive environment.digital equity program: lena park offered classes, computers, and ongoing technical support to members of the community with a special focus on senior citizens.lena park is excited to partner with new boston and 2 life communities on the development of the villages project. This development is located on the olmsted green campus. This project will provide 127 affordable senior rental units; 66 affordable intergenerational rental units and 97 homeownership units.the project will also include a senior community center, a teen community center and a pharmacy.

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.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 7
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 8.2%; rating input score 8
  • Program expense ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 8
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25.1%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.48; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 8.2% of revenue deployed · 7.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $107K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $140K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 9 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: Mission deployment rate scored 8/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.