Linden Park Neighborhood Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
851968569
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
3154503309
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Neighborhood, Block Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$169,733
Expenses
$1,339
Assets
$514,795
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Matthew Connolly (President)
  • Anne Cullen (Vice President and Secretary)

People named in this filing

  • Matthew Connolly (President)
  • Jason Stockmann (Treasurer)
  • Anne Cullen (Vice President and 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

Linden Park is a neighborhood of 55 pre-fabricated single-family homes built in 1982 along three adjacent streets in the Wellington-Harrington Neighborhood of Cambridge, Mass. Linden Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA) is a non-profit corporation that exists to organize events, coordinate with other neighborhood and municipal groups, advocate on behalf of residents, and plan physical improvements that benefit both neighborhood residents and the broader public welfare in the city of Cambridge. The LPNA also deals with maintenance of fences and landscaping around the perimeter of the neighborhood, including fences along Cardinal Madeiros Avenue and plantings and fences along Memorial Way. Finally, LPNA works to maintain the health of the mature linden trees that canopy its streets. These improvements benefit neighborhood residents as well as the broader public.

What it reported doing in 2024

The LNPA advocates at both the city and state level to advance the welfare of Linden Park residents as well as the broader surrounding neighborhoods. One recent example of this activity is the role that the LNPA played in working with city officials to plan the physical design of the nearby Grand Junction Multi-use Path and path access points. This feedback helps the city design a safe, accessible facility with attractive path entries from nearby neighborhoods, while addressing resident concerns about privacy and security. Another example is planning community block parties on our neighborhood streets, and inviting neighbors from the broader Wellington-Harrington neighborhood beyond the borders of Linden Park. Finally, the LNPA has successfully worked with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation to move a late-night locomotive holding point further south, away from the neighborhood and into a commercial area, greatly reducing the quality of life impact that idling locomotive noise had on surrounding neighborhoods. We regularly communicate with other neighborhood groups, especially the East Cambridge Planning Team, to find synergies in our civic activities and to work together whenever possible for the greater good of all eastern Cambridge residents.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - 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: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 94
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.5%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 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: 99.2%; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 384.46; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.3% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 1/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.