New Media Advocacy Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900451693
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Hudson, NY, USA
Phone
7185649839
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$724,381
Expenses
$847,258
Assets
$179,472
Liabilities
$136,616

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHEN STEIM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN STEIM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $167,363 total reported compensation
  • DANIELLE KRAUS (OPERATIONS MANAGER): $94,097 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Nmap's mission is to partner with change makers to tell stories that promote a more equitable world. We work with activists and organizations internationally to make measurable progress on complex problems where new narratives, reframing, and unconventional approaches are most needed.nmap's filmmakers and media professionals help human rights advocates integrate visual media and new technologies directly into their advocacy strategies, enabling them to win their cases and achieve their advocacy goals more effectively and efficiently. Nmap assists human rights advocates and lawyers, other not-for-profit organizations, underserved communities, and victims of human rights abuses by co-developing and integrating multimedia into their public and private advocacy efforts.

What it reported doing in 2022

In 2021, nmap partnered with foundations and civil society organizations to make measurable progress on complex problems where new narratives, reframing, and unconventional approaches are most needed. We continued to fight extractive industry abuse by using video to empower rural communities targeted for mining to defend their rights; continued a mentorship program for lgptqi and bipoc activists using narrative strategies to resist petrochemical development and imagine a different future for appalachia.

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 88% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 76.9%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 18th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96%; rating input score 96; 43rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.76; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -17.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90% of revenue deployed · 76.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $652K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $167K · 8 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2014 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.