Natural High

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330668362
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
La Jolla, CA, USA
Phone
8585517006
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonprofit Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$404,281
Expenses
$465,101
Assets
$174,277
Liabilities
$1,361

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DESIREE PAVLIK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DESIREE PAVLIK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $161,018 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 inspire and empower youth to find their natural high and develop the skills and courage to live life well.

What it reported doing in 2025

Online: in 2025 we continued to promote our fentanyl toolkit (video, discussion questions, film screening guide, and resources) to raise awareness and inform kids, educators, and parents about the dangers of fentanyl. We continued to expand our natural high essentials. These are short content-rich articles on the most important topics parents and educators need to know about to guide their kids to a thriving life. They provide digestible, relevant research plus actionable exercises and activities. Additionally, natural high created the following resources: two new celebrity and athlete storyteller packages, new educational content (lesson plans for educators) for a red ribbon week (rrw) and fentanyl awareness day, and special holiday content: 1) fourth of july safe holiday tips, and 2) how to keep holidays alcohol free for teens.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.2%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 63.3%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 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; 64th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -15%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.6%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 73.2% of revenue deployed · 63.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $295K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • 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.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.