Living Lands Agrarian Nework
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 264045044
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2013
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2013, Form 990-N 2012
- Location
- Nevada City, CA, USA
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Natural Resources Conservation and Protection
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $81,538
- Expenses
- $68,429
- Assets
- $32,019
- Liabilities
- $1,930
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Leo Chapman (President)
People named in this filing
- Leo Chapman (President)
- Ian Bailey (Secretary)
- Renee Wade (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To serve as a network of ecologically minded farmers and community members, working to strengthen our communities ties and connnections to the land, to support agrarian education and ecological literacy, and to carefully steward the land on which we farm and live.
What it reported doing in 2013
The primary program operated by the organization, to fulfill its exempt purpose is an internship program. The program utilized skilled farmers to train individuals wishing to learn the trade of farming. These individuals are trained through the entire cycle of farming from crop managment to the sale of farm produce.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 53
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.3%; rating input score 83
- Program expense ratio: 99.2%; rating input score 99
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 16.1%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.3% of revenue deployed · 99.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $68K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.