Land at Home Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
872766703
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
5202229859
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$312,498
Expenses
$282,243
Assets
$120,986
Liabilities
$79,495

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Barry Taylor (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Emma Cashman (Executive Dir.): $36,948 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Helping veterans achieve success and wellbeing through opportunities in sustainable agriculture

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, The Land At Home Project advanced its mission of helping veterans achieve success and wellbeing through opportunities in sustainable agriculture by delivering impactful programs for veterans, active duty service members, and their family members. Through community outreach efforts, the organization connected with hundreds of veterans and their family members while providing direct program services to more than two dozen participants. Graduates of the Veterans in Agriculture program have gone on to start or expand their own agricultural enterprises, while others have secured employment within the agriculture industry, demonstrating the programs role in supporting meaningful career pathways and long-term success in agriculture. In addition to workforce and educational outcomes, the program has fostered meaningful community connections among veteran participants, and local community members. Participants of LAHP programs develop stronger personal and professional networks, an increased sense of community connectedness, a deeper connection to the land, and an overall improved sense of wellbeing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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 - 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: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 35
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.6%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $34.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.7%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.43; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.1%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.6% of revenue deployed · 84.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $239K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $37K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.