Louisiana Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463326045
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Phone
2257211313
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$184,844
Expenses
$108,837
Assets
$133,224

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Robby Royer (Chairman)
  • Danny Hebert (Board Member)
  • Wallace Mills (Vice Chairman)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We are a producer-led and producer-focused 501(c)(3) non-profit that promotes ecological and economical grazing practices across Louisiana through educational and networking efforts.

What it reported doing in 2025

We educate Louisiana landowners, farmers, ranchers, and the general public about real-life conservation practices on land used for grazing animals or producing hay, which benefits the soil, water, air, plants, and animals. We connect these same people through networking opportunities. We provide quality, Louisiana-forced regenerative agriculture educational content in the form of articles, webinars, documentaries, videos, and podcasts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.9%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.1%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.22; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 79.8% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.9% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $109K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.