Endangered Habitats League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954455451
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2138042750
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,103,617
Expenses
$1,315,073
Assets
$1,232,915
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Daniel Silver (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Michael Beck (Director): $161,536 total reported compensation
  • Daniel Silver (Executive Director): $125,000 total reported compensation
  • Jess Morton (Treasurer): $37,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

EHL leads the way toward a better future for southern California through the creation of secure intact native landscapes where diverse, abundant wildlife thrives, by building sustainable human communities with a high quality of life for everyone, and by protecting rural and agricultural lands from being overrun by urban sprawl.

What it reported doing in 2025

Since 1991, the Endangered Habitats League has worked on Californias Natural Communities Conservation Planning program. EHL works with local and state advisory groups, reviews and analyzes technical documents, appears in legal proceedings, comments on and/or initiates relevant scientific studies for regional climate action and land use programs. EHL served on the Tejon Ranch Conservancy Board of Directors and on advisory committees in San Diego and Orange Counties, in the former to adopt a new North County habitat plan and in the latter to direct Measure M funding to create connectivity between NCCP regions. In San Bernardino County, in 2025, EHL made progress in its goal to preserve vital habitat for the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and restore the upper Santa Ana River. The launch of the Greater Prado Basin Habitat Conservation Plan complements this effort. In Riverside County, EHL worked to protect a regional wildlife linkage along Temecula Creek. EHL participated in a consortium that introduces fishermen to gear systems that do not entangle whales.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 27% for direct work, 59% for grants, and 14% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 50
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.9%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.4%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -18.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -19.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.