Center for Environmental Health Monitoring and Management

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 900171217
IRS 990 coverage: 2009–2024
Forms available: Form 990 2024
Location: Carlsbad, NM, USA
Phone: 5758853700
Rating: 68
Verdict: SUPPORTED
Rating confidence: Moderate
Sector: Engineering and Technology

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue: $13,092,596
Expenses: $8,016,094
Assets: $40,684,830
Liabilities: $1,088,665

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

EMILY WIRTH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

EMILY WIRTH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $197,266 total reported compensation
JENNIFER RAMIREZ (CONTROLLER): $167,199 total reported compensation
MATTHEW MATHIS (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $152,467 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2024

Center for environmental health, monitoring, and management (cehmm) has nationally recognized conservation programs in habitat conservation and management in support of three species of concern in New Mexico and Texas. These are the lesser prairie chicken, the dunes sagebrush lizard, and the Texas hornshell mussell. These programs provide for the conservation of the three species while affirming and supporting traditional, multiple land uses. In 2013, cehmm established a new division dedicated to providing environmental consultation services to industry for expediting permit authorizations regarding work on state and federal lands. These services include, but are not limited to: writing environmental assessments in support of applications for permits to drill (apds) and rights-of-ways (row's), conducting permit reviews in support of expediting apd and row submittals and trench monitoring, and surveillance in support of bureau of land management (blm) mandates.

Operating model

Revenue model: Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - 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: 48
Transparency & Controls: 81
Accountability: 79
Sustainability: 83
Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 41.3%; rating input score 41
Program expense ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 75
Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- 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: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

Operating margin: 38.8%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.08; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 41.3% of revenue deployed · 75.2% of spending went to programs
Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6M in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $197K · 10 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.6M reported
Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
Filing history: 13 filing years from 2009 to 2024
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Money network: 3 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.

Key Signals

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

Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.