Farmers Land Trust Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
934258347
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Cookeville, TN, USA
Phone
8334327685
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Farmland Preservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,174,890
Expenses
$289,868
Assets
$908,649
Liabilities
$10,502

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IAN MCSWEENEY (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KRISTINA VILLA (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY)

Highest reported compensation

  • IAN MCSWEENEY (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $60,950 total reported compensation
  • KRISTINA VILLA (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY): $60,950 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 farmers land trust works nationally to protect and transition farmland for next generation farmers who are using regenerative agriculture to grow food, fiber, flowers, and other agriculture products for their communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Farmland commons - focus on the communications, engagement, agreements and the fundraising and development, real estate due diligence and transactions, and development and incorporation of local farmland commons (501(c)(25)s, and the relationships and networks needed to manifest the farmland commons. Also providing limited and fee-for-service resource support to communities/people/orgs interested in learning more and doing more around land transitions, creative land access and tenure, and land legacy

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 15.7%; rating input score 16
  • Program expense ratio: 61.8%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $39.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 75.3%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.13; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 42.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 15.7% of revenue deployed · 61.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $179K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $61K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.