Practical Education Network Africa-USA Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
934483728
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Somerville, MA, USA
Phone
5087188126
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$38,581
Expenses
$3,065
Assets
$35,516

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HEATHER BEEM (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • WILFRED MBAH (CHAIRMAN)
  • HEATHER BEEM (PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH HUSSEY (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To mobilize resources for charitable and educational purposes including, but not limited to, promoting partnerships to equip teachers in africa with low-cost, hands-on approaches to teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, to drive sustainable development in africa.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, the organization started building the foundation upon which they could provide services in line with its mission. The organization began the necessary steps to organize, coordinate, and fund the training of kindergarten through grade 12 science and math teacher in west africa to use low-cost, hands-on approaches to teach more effectively in their classrooms. This includes training both in-service and pre-service teachers. Also, this includes printing and distribution of teacher resource manuals which contain low-cost activity guides aligned to their national curriculum. Students across the region are expected to benefit in terms of increased interest in "stem" fields and improved learning outcomes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 92.1%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.59; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.