Project Village Guatemala Foundation

Project Village Guatemala Foundation is not a conventional open-application grantmaker — it is a small, founder-run supporting foundation whose IRS filings show essentially all grant dollars flowing to one affiliated Guatemalan nonprofit under two name variants in the filings, 'Associacion El Proyecto De La Aldea' ($599,471 across 4 grants) and 'Asociacion El Proyecto De La Aldeas' ($224,278, 1 grant) — the same on-the-ground partner that runs the San Bernabé Vista Hermosa school. Total tracked giving is $823,749 across just 5 grants (avg. $164,750), and the foundation's own site marks applications as `preselected_only`, with application_instructions recorded as 'none.' First-time applicants outside this existing relationship should not expect a traditional LOI-to-full-proposal pipeline; there is no evidence of one operating in practice. The seven-person, all-volunteer board (President Darya Geetter; Secretary/Treasurer Vincent Charles Degarlais; directors Sarah Cohen, Nancy/Nanci Halis, Zachary Sun, Devang Amin, Yevgeny Neginsky, with George Carofino and former President Andrew Crain in the historical record) draws zero compensation, signaling a lean, mission-driven family/friends structure rather than a staffed program office. The realistic path in is not a cold proposal but direct outreach tied to one of the foundation's two live program lines: the San Bernabé school itself, or the 2022-launched Ed Tech Project equipping 40 rural Chimaltenango schools with tablets, servers, and Starlink connectivity in partnership with Guatemala's Ministry of Education. Organizations doing closely adjacent work — rural Mayan/indigenous education, ed-tech infrastructure in Chimaltenango, or teacher/curriculum support for the same school network — have the only plausible entry point, ideally through introduction rather than an unsolicited application. Given total assets of just $4.6M and typical annual giving in the $200K-$500K range, this is a small, mission-locked funder best approached as a potential program partner or co-funder on Guatemala-specific education work, not as a general-purpose grants line.

Grant data is thin by design: only 5 recorded grants totaling $823,749, averaging $164,750 each, and both named recipients are the same Guatemalan partner organization spelled two ways across filings — meaning 100% of tracked grant dollars support one program relationship. Total giving (grants plus related program spending) has ranged from $184,229 (FY2012) to $506,068 (FY2023), with grants_paid alone ranging from $138,417 (FY2013) to $428,551 (FY2023). Total assets have grown steadily from $2.1M (FY2012) to $4.6M currently (asset_amount $4,649,043; FY2024 total_assets $4,109,206), roughly doubling over twelve years on a mix of investment income (net investment income ranged $20,510-$498,466 across the years on record) and periodic large contributions — FY2022 alone brought in $2,193,700 in contributions, more than 10x a typical year, which explains a revenue spike to $2.2M that year against grants_paid of only $170,920. Annual revenue is otherwise modest and volatile: $267,014-$653,570 in most years, driven by a small base of contributors rather than diversified fundraising. FY2024 shows total_revenue of $312,059 but no reported grants_paid figure, consistent with a lag in public filing data rather than a funding pause. There is no geographic breakdown by U.S. state (by_state is empty) because virtually all program spending is directed to Guatemala, not domestic recipients. With no program-area breakdown beyond 'education of indigenous Mayan kids' as the stated purpose on every recorded grant, this foundation should be modeled as a single-program funder: essentially all of its ~$200K-$500K in annual giving supports one school and its associated ed-tech expansion, not a diversified portfolio grant seekers can compete for.

Project Village Guatemala sits squarely in the middle of this asset-size peer band ($4.58M-$4.76M), all of which are IRS-classified under Health despite Project Village Guatemala's actual practice being 100% education-focused — a classification artifact worth flagging to any researcher screening by NTEE code. Structurally, the foundation most resembles the two trust-style peers (Ruskin Family Trust, Trust U/W Mary Alice Fitch): small, closely held vehicles with no public program staff, no visible RFP process, and grantmaking concentrated on pre-identified beneficiaries rather than competitive review. None of the five peers show public evidence of an open application process either, reinforcing that this entire asset tier ($4.5M-$4.8M single-family/closely-held foundations) is generally not a productive target for cold outreach.

No third-party press coverage, news mentions, or grantmaker-database commentary from 2025-2026 was found for Project Village Guatemala Foundation in web search — a search for foundation-specific news returned only unrelated Guatemala development stories (World Bank rural roads, electric-cooperative volunteer trips, Habitat for Humanity builds). The foundation's own website is the sole source of current activity: it maintains an active Ed Tech Project blog and a San Bernabé school blog with ongoing updates, and it publishes yearly reports through 2024. The two most concrete, dated program facts available are (1) the Ed Tech Project's 2022 launch equipping 40 rural Chimaltenango schools with tablets, routers, servers, laptops, TVs, and Starlink internet in partnership with Guatemala's Ministry of Education, and (2) the school's growth trajectory since a documented 2005 baseline of one teacher and 57 students to a multi-grade school producing students who place top-ten nationally in math and science, with seven graduates receiving full-ride U.S. university scholarships. Leadership shows some turnover in the board record: Darya Geetter is the current President, succeeding Andrew Crain, who is listed as a former President in earlier filings; George Carofino appears as a director in one filing year but not others, suggesting normal small-board rotation rather than a governance event. Given the absence of any 2025-2026 news, grant seekers should treat this as a low-visibility, steady-state funder rather than one undergoing active strategic change, and should verify current program status directly via the foundation's site or most recent Form 990-PF before any outreach.

Do not submit a cold LOI or generic proposal — the foundation's own data marks applications as `preselected_only` with application_instructions recorded as 'none,' and no public RFP, portal, or deadline exists anywhere in the available record (application_form_url, application_deadline, and opportunities_url are all null). The single highest-leverage move is alignment with one of the two named program lines verbatim: 'education of indigenous Mayan kids' generally, or specifically the Chimaltenango Ed Tech Project (ministry partnership, ed-tech hardware and Starlink connectivity for rural schools) or the San Bernabé Vista Hermosa school itself. Organizations already active in Chimaltenango or partnered with Guatemala's Ministry of Education on rural education infrastructure have a materially better shot than generalist education nonprofits, since the foundation's entire five-grant public history goes to one existing partner (Associacion/Asociacion El Proyecto De La Aldea). Approach through relationship-building, not application: identify a warm introduction to a board member (Darya Geetter, President; Vincent Charles Degarlais, Secretary/Treasurer; or directors Sarah Cohen, Nancy Halis, Zachary Sun, Devang Amin, Yevgeny Neginsky) rather than submitting paperwork into a void. A common mistake would be treating this as a typical health-sector funder because of its NTEE 'Health' classification — its actual giving is 100% education-focused in Guatemala, so health-framed pitches will misfire entirely. Because the foundation is small and uncompensated-volunteer-run (all listed officers show $0 compensation), expect a slow, personal decision process rather than a staffed review cycle — patience and a long runway (months, not weeks) are more realistic than a fixed submission-to-decision timeline. If direct partnership isn't viable, consider positioning as a co-funder or in-kind technical partner (e.g., ed-tech hardware, connectivity, curriculum) on the existing Chimaltenango rollout rather than seeking a cash grant, since that mirrors how the foundation already operates with its Guatemalan partner.