The Land Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
480842156
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Salina, KS, USA
Phone
7858235376
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,068,995
Expenses
$9,579,492
Assets
$24,136,181
Liabilities
$1,683,170

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RACHEL STROER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RACHEL STROER (PRESIDENT): $218,585 total reported compensation
  • LEE DEHAAN (LEAD SCIENTIST, KERNZA): $155,512 total reported compensation
  • DAVID VAN TASSEL (LEAD SCIENTIST, OILSEEDS): $155,272 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

When people, land, and community are as one, all three members prosper; when they relate not as members but as competing interests, all three are exploited. By consulting nature as the source and measure of that membership, the land institute seeks to develop an agriculture that will save soil from being lost or poisoned, while promoting a community life at once prosperous and enduring.

What it reported doing in 2024

The land institute is developing a new farming system, natural systems agriculture (nsa), including developing new perennial grain crops and diverse cropping systems that provide their own fertility, weed control and water management and hold the soil year-round. Nsa responds to the urgent need to stop soil erosion and mitigate and adapt to climate change worldwide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.4%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 78%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • 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: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.9%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.52; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.4% of revenue deployed · 78% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $7.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 20 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.