Madison Park Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237164223
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Roxbury, MA, US
Phone
978-397-5936
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,835,211
Expenses
$10,526,260
Assets
$59,815,681
Liabilities
$20,724,470

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AYANNA HINES (PRESIDENT (UNTIL 07/25))
  • GLORIA E BROOKS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MALIK AZIZ (PRESIDENT)
  • INGRID TUCKER (CEO (UNTIL 07/25))
  • INTIYA AMBROGI-ISAZA (VICE PRESIDENT OF REAL ESTATE)
  • KATE BENNET (INTERIM CEO (AS OF 08/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • INGRID TUCKER (CEO (UNTIL 07/25)): $332,141 total reported compensation
  • INTIYA AMBROGI-ISAZA (VICE PRESIDENT OF REAL ESTATE): $244,980 total reported compensation
  • LYNDON HADYN VINCENT (DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY ACTION): $200,739 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Madison Park Development Corporation is a non-profit organization dedicated to the Roxbury community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Real estate - mpdc, through its real estate program, acts as either the developer or co-developer on properties benefitting low-income residents in the roxbury, Massachusetts community. In addition, mpdc operates rental properties benefitting the low-income residents in the roxbury, Massachusetts community. The real estate program also includes the company's asset management business which oversees the operations of all residential and commercial rental properties, as well as its early stage development activities.

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 88% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 89.6%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

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: 29%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.68; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.9%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 75.2% of revenue deployed · 89.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $9.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $332K · 19 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $657K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 33 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 — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.