Shanta Foundation Inc

What it reported doing in 2024

Shanta Village Partners is pioneering a holistic, community-led, sustainable development model (Village Partnership Model VPM) that equips local people to solve local problems permanently; this approach fosters independency rather than dependency. Moreover, by placing local villagers in control of the partnership, the vestiges of colonialism (so ubiquitous in how international development is commonly implemented) are erased, and the voices, choices, and sovereignty of local people are centered in the project design. When Shanta partners with a village (typically for six years), we begin by facilitating a process whereby the entire village elects a Village Development Team that will design and oversee the implementation of their villages development path. Our approach is not prescriptive. Rather, we believe that the villagers themselves know their context, complete with its opportunities, resources, and challenges, better than we ever will. As such, we facilitate a process whereby the villagers set their development priorities, actually choosing what projects will or wont be pursued. The VDT leads this work and begins by establishing a community bank. The community bank offers low-interest loans to villagers, and they usually borrow to buy agricultural inputs. This accomplishes two things: first, each familys farming efforts are more profitable because their cost of capital is generally cut in half; second, with each successive loan cycle, interest accumulates in the community bank, eventually growing to the point that the VDT can withdraw the funds needed to implement a new project or maintain an existing project. This goes well beyond conventional notions of sustainability because it creates a perpetually growing pool of capital that can be used for development projects. Meanwhile, it spurs increased enterpreneurial activity by radically reducing the cost of capital for micro-enterprises and and smallhold farmers. Once these core projects are established, we offer villagers a menu of additional projects (alternate agriculture, womens empowerment, clean water, school improvement, teacher housing, healthcare, etc.). Still, villagers can also choose projects that are not on this list. It is their village, so the development path is 100% theirs to design. During Fiscal Year 25 (July 2024 to June 2025), Shanta Village Partners made a significant impact by collaborating with 19 villages15 in Myanmar and 4 in Zambia. Notably, four villages in Myanmar successfully graduated from a six-year partnership at the end of December 2024, marking a milestone in sustainable development. A total of 1,685 households and 7,594 individuals directly benefited from 20 different project types and a total of 179 village development projects, transforming lives and fostering resilient communities. Shanta Village Partners is structured to reinforce long-term sustainability by funding and training grassroots, locally-based organizations (such as Muditar in Myanmar and Peoples Action Forum in Zambia) rather than directly implementing the Village Partnership Model (VPM) ourselves. This is the preferable approach for several reasons. By investing know-how and resources in local development practitioners, we build local capacity to drive development, ensuring that the necessary skills are rooted in the local communities and not dependent on expatriates. Moreover, it means that our organizational structure reflects the very principles we are trying to share in local communities. Rather than doing for, we equip others to do for themselves. This happens when Shanta trains its local partner, and then it happens again when our local partners go into villages to provide training, facilitation, and encouragement. Finally, this approach empowers the local organization (a separate legal entity from Shanta) to contextualize and execute the VPM. This enhances sustainability because it allows local people, who understand the culture, to adapt the model to fit a given co

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 55.2%; rating input score 55
• Program expense ratio: 64.9%; rating input score 65
• Fundraising efficiency: $6.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd 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: 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: 82.2%; rating input score 82; 35th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Pass
  • 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: 16.7%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.85; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 15.6%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings