Cadasta Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472326975
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023809447
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,169,575
Expenses
$2,975,330
Assets
$2,308,648
Liabilities
$297,774

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AMY COUGHENOUR BETANCOURT (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMY COUGHENOUR BETANCOURT (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $228,146 total reported compensation
  • JOHN TORRES (SR. COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR): $172,158 total reported compensation
  • HEIDI BURGESS (SR. DIRECTOR OF PHILANTHROPY): $156,400 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cadasta foundation aims to be the leading provider of technical tools and services to support the documentation of land and resource rights to build stronger, more sustainable communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Platform and mobile apps for land tenure documentation, formal rights recognition, land and resource monitoring, and data management and storage: cadasta's core activity to further its charitable purposes is our global platform and mobile data collection applications, deployed as easy to use, cost effective and efficient esri-backed tools to record land and resource rights related information. This global platform enables recordation of rights, particularly for those left out of formal land systems. In addition, the platform has the ability to safely and securely store data related to land and resources based on our partner needs. The platform is scalable and secure, ensuring prevention of disclosure of confidential or personally identifiable information.the primary beneficiaries of this work are disadvantaged and underserved communities with inadequate or lack of land tenure security. Cadasta makes the platform available to partners and users in such communities as part of a package that includes system access through log-ins and cadasta training and services. The platform also serves as a repository of related resource data, such as satellite imagery, a living atlas, data layers, analysis and reporting tools, and other geospatial data, which has traditionally been difficult to access for non-state actors. One of the goals is to enable governments, communities, and individuals in lower resource contexts to interact with and contribute data through fit-for-purpose approaches to securing land and resource rights. Mobile and satellite technology play a central role in establishing fit-for-purpose tools and methodologies to improve land governance in remote and underresourced communities. Cadasta also supports data migration and integration for partners and governments to consolidate their data into cadasta's high-quality platform with a broad set of functions and to visualize other relevant data sets in maps, dashboards and other formats.to deliver the platform technology, cadasta works with international program partners that work in the area of land governance, protection of indigenous territories and resource rights, conservation, climate, and upgrading of informal urban settlements. Some of the partners are based in the united states, including habitat for humanity, rri and landesa, while other ngos are based outside of united states, such as tenure facility, cool earth and others. Partner agencies are generally either section 501(c)(3) public charities, international charities, national charities, or government entities.cadasta's key delivery partners are local and national civil society groups, indigenous peoples organizations, ngos, and government agencies working in rural, urban, and forest areas around the world, such as arch vahini, pradan, colandef, confeniae, unipa, vsg, fundapaz and many others.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.7%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Pass
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -37.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.7% of revenue deployed · 67.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $228K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.