Cetana Educational Foundation

Legal name: Cetana Educational Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223166684
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Princeton, NJ, United States
Phone
+1 (609) 865-5644
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$151,334
Expenses
$199,957
Assets
$328,152
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MYAT MYAT MON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN JENNINGS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CHENAULT SPENCE (SECRETARY)
  • MYAT MYAT MON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL W JENNINGS (TREASURER)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support educational opportunites for myanmar students.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization provides commitments to students in myanmar to study abroad in the us, thailand and other southeast asian universities. These commitments range from two to four years, and are contingent on continued student enrollment, satisfactory performance, and a commitment to return to myanmar for a minimum of three years to work in their field of study. The organization sponsors students by providing support for tuition, room, board and travel expenses. In addition, cetana provided local educational and leadership training at its two yangon-based english language centers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.5%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 53.3%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -32.1%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.64; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 70.5% of revenue deployed · 53.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $107K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.