Malagasy Foundation in Environment Tany Meva
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 980169222
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Antananarivo, Madagascar, MA
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Pollution Abatement and Control Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,423,677
- Expenses
- $3,519,902
- Assets
- $24,191,581
- Liabilities
- $2,410,716
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Josephine Soanorondriaka Rakotoarij (President of the Board)
- Tiana Ramparany (Vice President of the Board)
People named in this filing
- Josephine Soanorondriaka Rakotoarij (President of the Board)
- Tiana Ramparany (Vice President of the Board)
- Fanantenana Razatovo Andrianaivotia (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
Created in 1996, Tany Meva is an endowment fund working in Madagascar by supporting activities to achieve the main international conventions objectives on environment, mainly, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Its support is designed through programs involving effective commitment of local communities. Its mission is to Raise and manage fund in order to promote a sustainable management of natural resource in Madagascar and to contribute to international challenges in natural resource management.
What it reported doing in 2025
Grants from funds of Tany Meva, Support projects improving natural resource management, enhancing long-term environmental protection and conservation and encouraging the participation of people whose livelihood depends directly on sound environmental management.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 81
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73.3%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 78.7%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $28.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Pass
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.2%; rating input score 98; 40th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 35.1%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.87; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 34.8% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 23.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 73.3% of revenue deployed · 78.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 40 of 42 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.