Chinese Historical Society of Southern California Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953155357
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3233528824
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$176,946
Expenses
$108,910
Assets
$1,283,564
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Eugene Moy (President)
  • Robert Chong (Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • Eugene Moy (President)
  • Susan Dickson (Secretary)
  • Steven Tom (Treasurer)

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

To bring together people with a mutual interest in the important history and historical role of Chinese and Chinese Americans in Southern California; To pursue, preserve and communicate knowledge of this history; and To promote the heritage of the Chinese and Chinese American community in support of a better appreciation of our rich, multi-cultural society of the United States.

What it reported doing in 2024

Digital Library and Archives: The Organization is continuing the process of fully implementing the Preservation Assessment recommendations with respect to its Digital Library and Archives. Since 2021, the Organization has hired archivists as Collections Manager to assess, organize and manage the Digital Library and Archives. In addition, other qualified archivists have been contracted to convert its Archives and Collections into a digital format for greater public access.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% 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 - 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: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.8%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 71.4%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 38.5%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.79; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.5% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.8% of revenue deployed · 71.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $78K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.