Culture Regeneration Research Society USA
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680388605
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jun 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Alhambra, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4156966728
- Rating
- 63
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Religion Related N.E.C.
- Affiliation
- Religious (unspecified)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $192,574
- Expenses
- $170,416
- Assets
- $639,259
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
People named in this filing
- GILBERT MAK (Director)
- THOMAS IN-SING LEUNG (Director)
- HEIDI CHENG (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
Form 990, part i, line 1 - we are dedicated to community services such as poverty relief, caring for the underprivileged and the sick.our major activities include providing educational funds to the needy students inthe rural villages and inner cities.form 990, part iii, line 1 - organization missionwe are dedicated to community services such as poverty relief, caringfor the underprivileged and the sick.our major activities include providing educational funds for the needy students inthe rural villages and inner cities.form 990, part vi, line 11b - form 990 review processthe informational return is prepared by an outside tax accountant and is reviewed bythe board chair prior to filing.form 990, part vi, line 15a - compensation review & approval process - ceo & top managementguidelines for all compensations for ceo, executive director, and top management arelisted in details in crrs USA bylaws. Any revisions were discussed and approved inboard meetings and documented in board meeting min
What it reported doing in 2024
Crrs USA teams with crrs canada to support publication of "cultural china" magazine for the chinese universities scholars.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 87% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 55
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 68
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 70.1%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 73.9%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: $10.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
- 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.5%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.75; rating input score 74; 74th 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: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 70.1% of revenue deployed · 73.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $126K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.