Preservation Austin

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
746060685
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5124745198
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,867,391
Expenses
$723,104
Assets
$3,035,744
Liabilities
$142,790

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MELISSA BARRY (PRESIDENT)
  • MIRIAM CONNER (PRESIDENT-EL)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDSEY DERRINGTON (EXECUTIVE DI): $113,471 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Preservation austin exists to empower austinites to shape a more inclusive, resilient, and meaningful community culture through preservation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tangible impacts on the city include preservation austin's matching grant program for education, bricks and mortar, and planning/historic resource survey/local historic designation projects. Preservations austin manages a portfolio of preservation covenants, working with property owners to steward their piece of austin history. The nonprofit purchased the streamline moderne mcfarland-mcbee house in 2019 and completed rehabilitation of this national register-listed city of austin landmark for preservation austin's office, and center for advocacy and programming, in 2026.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% 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 - 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: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 24.5%; rating input score 25
  • Program expense ratio: 59.9%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 61.3%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.2; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.7%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 24.5% of revenue deployed · 59.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $433K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $113K · 26 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $761K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.