Living Lands Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943372213
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Phoenixville, PA, USA
Phone
2628067978
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Farmland Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,714,847
Expenses
$856,060
Assets
$25,388,979
Liabilities
$50,911

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CAROL ANDREWS (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN BLOOM (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID OUTMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID OUTMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $82,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Living lands trust's mission is to protect land and constructed spaces from the speculative marketplace. Living lands trust's stewardship redefines ownership, use, and community within the framework of association and cultural practice. We recognize entrepreneurial destiny paths. Living lands trust makes it possible for biodynamic and regenerative farmers, ranchers, and other social entrepreneurs to access productive de-commodified places. Living lands trust's sustaining purpose is to foster the development of place-based regional economies that reflect the richness of a just and human culture.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, living lands trust continued its work to protect and steward lands and places that ennoble the human being and the earth. Our Wisconsin woods property continues to be an important place for quiet contemplation, or for educating children about nature. We also remain grateful for the opportunity to work with thoughtful property owners, communities, and other public and private partners to protect the sanctuaries of the future. These places serve as important sources of physical and spiritual nourishment. In support and furtherance of our mission, we assist with and carry out all manner of land program activities, such as: conservation, stewardship, restoration, regeneration, renewal, protection, evaluation, planning, access, disposition, transition, and transfer.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 18.2%; rating input score 18
  • Program expense ratio: 66.7%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $137.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 89; 89th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 77%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 29.66; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 18.2% of revenue deployed · 66.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $571K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $82K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.