Land for Good Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020530711
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Keene, NH, USA
Phone
6033571600
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$657,923
Expenses
$634,179
Assets
$239,815
Liabilities
$24,768

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TIM WHEELER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DEBORAH LEONARD KOSSITS (DIRECTOR)
  • TORY MCCAGG (DIRECTOR)
  • GLEN OHLUND (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Ensure the future of farming in by putting more farmers more securely on more land in new england and beyond. Each year we help thousands of farmers, landowners, professionals and communities navigate the complex challenges of farmland access, farm tenure, farm transfer, and succession. Our direct technical assistance, education and advocacy programs support the interrelated goals of three programs: 1.our farm seekers program fosters farming opportunities by helping farm seekers acquire farms and farmland. 2.our farm legacy program ensures meaningful legacies by helping transfer farms to the next generation or operator. 3.our working lands program increases land stewardship by helping landowners make land available for farming. We believe that any strategy to improve land access and tenure security for beginning and established farmers must make land more available and affordable, in ways that are both appropriate and equitable. That's why we develop, promote and support diversity and

What it reported doing in 2024

Land for good helps farmers and farmland owners access, care for and pass on working farmland and farm businesses. Over a 24 month period ending august 31, 2020, we have documented at least 83 farmer-landowner land tenure agreements that resulted in farmers acquiring land or more secure tenure but purchasing land, or improving, renewing or securing a lease. In 2020, our state-based farmer- field agents provided over 478 new cases of one on one direct technical assistance to new, beginning and established farmers of all types; to non-farming land owners and allied professionals, advocates and community leaders. Over 1000 farm seekers, transitioning farm families, farmland owners and other professionals were trained through 46 educational events. Our website (landforgood.org) was accessed by 189,000 users (a 33% increase) and saw at similar percent increase in sessions and a 21% increase in page views. 1003 unique users downloaded educational resources newenglandfarmerlandfinder.org, our free, regional farmland property listing and linking website had over 104,200 users and 158,700 sessions representing a 21% and 16% increase over the previous year, respectively. Our 2020 annual impact survey of new beneficiaries of all types (technical assistance, training and resource users) served over a 12 month period (ending 8/31/20) showed that 86% of respondents found land for good services and resources at least somewhat helpful in making progress toward their goals. 77% of the farm seeker respondents we helped took concrete steps toward to improve their land tenure security, and 45% improved their land tenure security through a purchase or lease within the year. 90% of transitioning farmer respondents took concrete steps to transfer their farms. Of those, 23% started a farm transfer plan and 19% identified a farm successor. 77% of non-farming landowners took steps to make land available for farming, of those, 66% make landowners land available to a farmer by sale, lease or other means. 51% of those farmland owner seeking a farmer-landowner 'match' successfully concluded a farm tenure transaction. 95% of service provider respondents increased their knowledge of issues (70%) and resources (75%), improved their referrals (50%) and reach to farmers.40% of them directly assisted with a farmland tenure transaction and 20% assisted with a farm transfer plan.

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 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.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 3.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.3% of revenue deployed · 90.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $574K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.