Chinese Historical and Cultural Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770156509
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4158604320
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cultural, Ethnic Awareness

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$73,662
Expenses
$84,474
Assets
$663,303
Liabilities
$1,566

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTIAN JOCHIM (Vice President)
  • DR ARTHUR JUE (Vice President)
  • INGRID LAI (Vice President)
  • DAVE YICK (President)

People named in this filing

  • Jonathan Wong (Director)
  • JUDY WONG (Director)
  • ALLAN LOW (Trustee)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Promote, Educate, and Preserve Chinese and Chinese American history and culture in the Santa Clara County. In addition to the care and sharing of the Chinese American Historical Museum (CAHM) in the Ng Shing Gung building at History Park San Jose, CHCP shares our stories with Outreach Activities.

What it reported doing in 2024

MUSEUM AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS: The Chinese Historical and Cultural Project (CHCP) provides grant opportunities to teachers who are interested in having their classes attend History San Jose (HSJ)s Immigration program field trips which include visits to the Chinese American Historical Museum for students in grades 4-12 in Santa Clara County, California.GRANTS ARE AVAILABLE to schools in Santa Clara County to help with the cost of buses for transportation to the Immigration program at History San Jose.CHCPs STUDENT DOCENT Cultural Ambassadors Program (SDCAP) help students improve their self-confidence and speaking skills as they interact with and guide visitors through the museum, and enrich their knowledge of Chinese culture and history through outreach events and research projects.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.1%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 83%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 69.8%; rating input score 70; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -14.7%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.85; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.1% of revenue deployed · 83% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $70K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 22 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.