Hill Country Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742948145
IRS 990 coverage
2008–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Austin, Texas, USA
Phone
(512) 328-2481
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,443,901
Expenses
$5,461,133
Assets
$39,569,462
Liabilities
$131,451

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY BARTON (PRESIDENT)
  • CLINT HARP (VICE PRESIDENT/PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • KATHY MILLER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • GEORGE COFER (FORMER CEO/CONSULTANT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATHY MILLER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $227,291 total reported compensation
  • FRANK DAVIS (CHIEF LAND OFFICER): $168,581 total reported compensation
  • RYAN VALENTINE (CHIEF FINANCE & OPERATING OFFICER): $144,875 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To protect the water, wildlife, and wonder of the Texas Hill Country.

What it reported doing in 2025

Land & water stewardship - hcc works with landowners and partners to steward and protect natural resources in the Texas hill country, including working to conserve water quality, implementing ecological restoration programs and partnering with public and private stakeholders to ensure clean water and air quality in the region.

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 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.2%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 90.7%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 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: 26.6%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.25; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 67.2% of revenue deployed · 90.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $227K · 25 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $1.4M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2008 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.