Mennonite Economic Development Associates

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237398678
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
Phone
8006657026
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
International Economic Development
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,546,791
Expenses
$8,405,506
Assets
$17,608,172
Liabilities
$2,985,057

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dorothy Nyambi (President/CEO, MEDA)
  • Mike Miller (Sr. Vice President, Marketing & Development, MEDA)

Highest reported compensation

  • Claude Clodomir (Chief of Party, Haiti, MEDA): $377,177 total reported compensation
  • Dorothy Nyambi (President/CEO, MEDA): $190,701 total reported compensation
  • Josh Landis (Interim VP Philanthropy & Public Engagement): $188,027 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

MEDA creates business solutions to poverty.

What it reported doing in 2024

MEDA works alongside our partners and clients to help: i) alleviate poverty, ii) support sustainable business growth and livelihoods, iii) women move into more valued and equitable roles in their economies, iv) businesses and small entrepreneurs gain access to financial services including investment, adopt clean technologies/climate-smart approaches, and minimize their environmental footprint, and v) improve their economies. MEDA's development programs include a full range of economic development tools: financial services, improved technology, business training and better access to markets. Our development program work most often focuses on women, youth and people living in poverty in rural areas.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.4%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 73.1%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 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: 12%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.09; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.4% of revenue deployed · 73.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $377K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.