Madison Park Economic Development Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043126706
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Roxbury, MA, USA
Phone
6175413900
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,898,213
Expenses
$1,428,927
Assets
$3,819,267
Liabilities
$2,583,665

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AYANNA HINES (PRESIDENT (UNTIL 7/25))
  • GLORIA BROOKS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MALIK AZIZ (PRESIDENT)
  • INGRID TUCKER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (UNTIL 7/25))
  • INITYA AMBROGI-ISAZA (VICE PRESIDENT OF REAL ESTATE)
  • KATE BENNET (INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (AS OF 8/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • INGRID TUCKER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (UNTIL 7/25)): $332,141 total reported compensation
  • INITYA AMBROGI-ISAZA (VICE PRESIDENT OF REAL ESTATE): $244,980 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide support for economic revitalization in the roxbury, Massachusetts area.

What it reported doing in 2025

To develop and preserve safe, affordable, and low-income housing to combat community deterioration by providing or financing businesses and nonprofit organizations that would be unable to otherwise obtain financing. This promotes a general welcome of underserved communities, and assists in the elimination of structural racism and discrimination and supports madison park development corporation and its affiliates in the development of physical, economic, social and structural revitalization of the roxbury neighborhood of boston, Massachusetts.

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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.2%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 99.7%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 50.7%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.67; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.68; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.7%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.2% of revenue deployed · 99.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $332K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 25 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.