Ethos Environmental Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
372042394
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Willits, CA, USA
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,002,765
Expenses
$894,041
Assets
$261,312
Liabilities
$182,222

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Heidi Wordhouse (Executive Dir.)
  • Jennie Kay Banta (Trustee)
  • Sarah Seville (Trustee)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Ethos Environmental is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to helping rural communities and small family farms thrive. The organization provides practical, compassionate assistance to rural individuals and community groups facing environmental, economic, geographic, and physical challenges. Ethos Environmental supports responsible environmental stewardship, wildfire resilience, watershed protection, and community safety while also strengthening local grassroots organizations through fiscal sponsorship and project development assistance.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organizations largest program service accomplishment during the year was the Spyrock Safe Access Roadside Fuels Reduction project. Ethos Environmental worked with local residents, Fire Safe Councils, and partner agencies to reduce hazardous roadside vegetation along main trunk access roads in the Spy Rock community. These roads serve as the only access and evacuation routes for many rural households. Dense roadside vegetation, narrow travel corridors, and accumulated fuels had created substantial wildfire risk and threatened the ability of emergency responders to reach homes. Project activities included planning and implementing roadside vegetation reduction, developing long-term maintenance strategies, coordinating with local volunteer groups, and prioritizing roads serving elderly, disabled, and otherwise vulnerable residents. The project also supported maintenance of emergency access to fire-water tanks and improved the likelihood that firefighters and medical responders could safely reach homes during emergencies. The project produced significant public benefit by improving evacuation safety, reducing wildfire transmission risk, increasing access for emergency responders, and protecting the approximately 800 parcels and 2,000 residents who rely upon Spyrock Road and connected private roads as their principal route of access.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.2%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.2% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $805K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $695K reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.