High Country Conservation Advocates
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 840772688
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Crested Butte, CO, USA
- Phone
- 9703497104
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $292,270
- Expenses
- $237,196
- Assets
- $235,317
- Liabilities
- $2,233
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ARVIN RAMGOOLAM (VICE PRESIDENT)
- SUE NAVY (PRESIDENT)
- DEREK PANKRATZ (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- NATALIE EHMSEN (SECRETARY)
- ARVIN RAMGOOLAM (VICE PRESIDENT)
- SUE NAVY (PRESIDENT)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
High country conservation advocates is a grassroots non-profit dedicated to protecting the health, integrity, and beauty of the public lands, waters, and wildlife of colorados gunnison country.
What it reported doing in 2024
PUBLIC LANDS PROGRAM From high rugged mountain faces to rolling sage brush flats, HCCA works to ensure that these special places are protected and conserved. For nearly 50 years, the Public Lands Program has played a key role in local and regional stakeholder groups, advocating for conservation within forest management, watershed planning, wildfire protection, tourism, and drought resilience efforts. HCCA advocates for conservation solutions to elected officials, government decisions makers and staff, other interested organizations, and the local community using a spectrum of tools from direct relationships, to participation in community planning processes, writing formal letters, and by publishing essays in local newspapers. We also lead collaborative efforts like the Gunnison Public Lands Initiative, which has resulted in broad stakeholders consensus to recommend protections for thousands of acres of public land-recommendations now advancing in Congress as part of the Gunnison Outdoor Resources Protection Act.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - 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: 59
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 52.4%; rating input score 52
- Program expense ratio: 63.4%; rating input score 63
- Fundraising efficiency: $73.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 18.8%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.99; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 52.4% of revenue deployed · 63.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $150K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 52/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.