Maya Educational Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030335159
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
8572707940
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,296,578
Expenses
$767,845
Assets
$7,224,733
Liabilities
$45,217

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AMY HOLLY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • PABLO CHAVAJAY (PRESIDENT)
  • MITCHELL DENBURG (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMY HOLLY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $16,750 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The maya educational foundation (mef) supports programs dedicated to the educational and professional advancement of maya people. How we achieve this mission: with our focus on higher education, we partner with proven nonprofits in guatemala, mexico, and belize in order to be able to provide university-level scholarships to promising and determined maya students from poor economic backgrounds.we make sure that all our scholarship programs show a high representation of women and girls and respect for maya culture and traditions.in order to increase educational access for maya students in remote areas, we work with nonprofits who encourage students to advance towards vocational high-school or university.we also support the efforts of two important guardians of historical and cultural heritage of the mesoamerican region: cirma in antigua, guatemala and sna jtz'ibajom (house of the writer) in san cristobal de las casas, mexico.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation annually provides grants to cirma in guatemala and sna jtz'ibajom, in support of their missions to foster study and preservation of mayan languages and cultures of the mesoamerican region.for more than four decades cirma has been recognized internationally for its dedication to the rescue and preservation of guatemala's visual and documentary patrimony. Mef's support of cirma focuses on their unique historical and photographic archives and their comprehensive library specializing in the social sciences, with books and periodicals pertaining to the mesoamerican region.in january 2024, mef started a scholarship program, with the help of cirma: 56 students, formerly in two other mef programs, are now being served by mef staff, with accounting and auditing oversight from cirma. This collaborative venture is called programa de becas mayas mef.sna jtz'ibajom (house of the writer), the maya writers' group in san cristobal de las casas has fought for the preservation of maya culture and promotion of literacy since 1983. The group's members have produced many plays and performances, written books, grammar and language manuals, taught literacy and indigenous language courses, and carried out video and radio projects.over the past two decades mef has been able to provide support to sna for bringing mayan language literacy courses to tseltal- and tsotsil-speaking communities in chiapas. In these courses, maya children and adults are learning to read and write in their own languages. There is great interest and thousands of children and adults have participated in and graduated from these courses. Mef shares the goal of preserving mayan languages and cultural traditions.mef launched a university scholarship program with sna jtz'ibajom in 1998. It has seen many students graduate and currently supports 35 students in a variety of disciplines, including agronomy, physical education, medicine, dentistry, communications, anthropology, law and nursing.more recently, sna has agreed to administer mef's small chenalho scholarship program with the help of local supervisors.

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 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.5%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $38.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • 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: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 49th 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; 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: 40.8%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.41; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.5% of revenue deployed · 84.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $651K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $17K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.