Royal African Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
820537124
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phone
8017558078
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$572,766
Expenses
$491,387
Assets
$455,187
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EMMA ANTON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • EMMA ANTON (PRESIDENT): $62,176 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The foundation's mission is to create and nurture projects which benefit communities, wilderness and wildlife.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, the royal african foundation completed the construction of a new kitchen and dining hall at lpus leluai school in westgate, samburu, the latest milestone in a partnership stretching back to 2008. The school, which serves 330 students right on the western edge of samburu national park, has been transformed by sustained investment over the years, and is now the best-performing school in its sub-county and among the top ten in all of samburu county. These newest facilities join a growing list of completed infrastructure, including lights, fencing, toliets, and boarding house improvements, all of which continue to improve daily life and safety for the school's students, staff, and the wildlife they live alongside.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $102.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • 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: 86%; rating input score 86; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.2%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.4% of revenue deployed · 82.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $403K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $62K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.