Ll Foundation Dba Land Learning Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832910976
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Keytesville, MO, USA
Phone
8885732323
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,481,250
Expenses
$2,502,586
Assets
$2,324,963
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL RAMSEY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DOUG HELMERS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CURTIS SCOTT MARTIN (EXEC DIRECTOR): $113,238 total reported compensation
  • KATIE WEISEHAN (ASST EXEC DIRECTOR): $76,185 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The ll foundation's mission is to foster stewardship through outdoor experience, youth education and natural resource conservation. Our goal is to teach the next generation through outdoor education, natural resource preservation and facilitate appreciation for the natural environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

Streambank and wetland protection: eroding and expanding stream channels can be highly destructive to riparian land and landowners are increasingly finding tillable soil being lost to streambank erosion. The foundation works with partners to develop custom plans for restoring and stabilizing streambanks and conserving the land into the future. Wetland ecosystems are key components to clean water initiatives, help reduce flooding on riparian land, create habitat for beneficial species including insectivores and provide sporting and educational opportunities. The foundation offers custom wetland conservation plans for large and small tracts and specializes in helping landowners who want to protect their wetland. The foundation has assisted many developers and landowners who require clean water act section 404 permits that are required when a project produces unavoidable impact on waters of the united states (streams and wetlands). Through in-lieu-fee advanced credit sales, the foundation ensures projects will meet federal regulatory standards.

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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -69%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.8% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $113K · 7 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.