The Environmental Media Associationinc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954268867
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Bel Air, CA, USA
Phone
3235562790
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,614,722
Expenses
$1,912,405
Assets
$198,775
Liabilities
$435,893

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

Leadership & pay

57 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEBORAH LEVIN-FOGEL (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DEBORAH LEVIN-FOGEL (CEO): $241,667 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

At the intersection of arts & science, ema is dedicated to promoting environmental advocacy through storytelling.

What it reported doing in 2025

Ema impact summit is a premier two-day sustainable business summit in los angeles, is about the tremendous potential of a green economy. Impact covers every aspect of getting game-changing innovations to the public as quickly as possible. From scientists and entrepreneurs with actionable solutions to corporate leaders ready to implement and influencers eager to raise awareness, impact is the only green business summit where you'll find every critical element in one room. At impact, we challenge our exclusive group of attendees to network, brainstorm and develop plans that will help our planet, health, and economy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -18.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.19; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.6%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 58 of 58 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $242K · 57 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.