Executive Mba Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943095701
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Laguna Hills, CA, USA
Phone
4803091131
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,000,686
Expenses
$1,190,171
Assets
$2,276,753
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL DESIDERIO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL DESIDERIO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $282,487 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o, note one

What it reported doing in 2025

To organize and assist with regional meetings for executive degree program directors to meet new colleagues, network within their geographic regions, and have a chance to see other campuses. The meetings also offer an oppertunity to include staff and faculty that are unable to travel to the emba council's annual meeting. Travel to the regional meetings and member schools to deliver presentations about the industry. Travel for staff and board members for required board meetings to provide operations and budget updates and discuss strategies.the council also provides publications to allow members to advertise for a nominal fee as a way of promoting their school, services, etc.

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

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.6%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 35.6%; rating input score 36
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.9%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.91; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.6% of revenue deployed · 35.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $424K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $282K · 12 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.