Khamai Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933313266
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
St Petersburg, FL, USA
Phone
9542837562
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Forest Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$343,442
Expenses
$288,725
Assets
$54,242
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alejandro Arteaga (President and CEO)
  • Gabriela Sandoval (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alejandro Arteaga (President and CEO): $26,500 total reported compensation
  • Gabriela Sandoval (Vice President): $600 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To save biodiverse tropical forests protect threatened herpetofauna support the discovery of new species and fight climate change by connecting our donors to the forest. Khamai focuses on creating reserves for amphibians and reptiles which can be particularly susceptible to environmental degradation and pollution. By protecting this often ignored animal group in turn hundreds if not thousands of other species in the reserves will be protected too.

What it reported doing in 2025

This project seeks to expand the Pitalala Reserve a protected area inside the biodiversity vertex a 100 km2 quadrant holding the ABSOLUTE greatest number of animal and plant species per unit area anywhere on Earth hoping to secure its designation as the first-ever Kichwa Biosphere Reserve. The expansion of the reserve will stop a network of colossal open-pit gold mining operations through the direct purchase of various rainforest land lots totaling 2,200 hectares. Khamai Foundation has the opportunity to acquire these plots of land before the miners do but only if we act quickly.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 85% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.5%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 91%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 15.9%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 54% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 149% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.5% of revenue deployed · 91% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $263K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $26K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 39 of 41 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.