Japan America Society of Southern California

Legal name: Japan America Society of So California

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952021853
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Gardena, CA, US
Phone
(310) 965-9050
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Promotion of International Understanding

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$312,878
Expenses
$286,289
Assets
$1,066,704
Liabilities
$138,687

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHEN RICKERT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (UNTIL 04/2024))

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN RICKERT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (UNTIL 04/2024)): $20,944 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Building Japan-America Relationships Since 1909

What it reported doing in 2024

2024 young professionals career workshop: build your career strategy (june 18, 2024)the japan america society of southern California (jassc) presented this interactive workshop that helped participants learn the "ideal" strategy to help build their career, based on their experience, aspirations, and skills. This career growth and leadership workshop was followed by a social networking mixer. The workshop was a hybrid format where participants could either attend in-person or join online.hosted by kuehne and nagel and held at their offices in torrance, california11th annual women's leadership counts conference "dear young me" (november 21, 2024)this year's theme was "dear young me", which was deeply reflective and thought provoking. It delved into and explored personal growth, life lessons, and the wisdom we wish we could share with our younger selves. Through inspiring speakers and engaging fireside chats, it dove into the transformative experiences that shape who we are today. This conference offered a unique opportunity to reflect on the path that has brought you here and gain valuable insights to guide your future journey. It also provided an intimate setting to connect with incredible individuals, fostering meaningful conversations and connections.speakers / panelists: sabina helton, los angeles superior court judgejulie norquist roy, cmo and board advisor in b2b saaschristopher patay, partner, pillsbury winthrop shaw pittman llpsponsors: ernst & young llp, deloitte, and hitachi, ltd., and nikkei globalhosted by pillsbury winthrop shaw pittman llp and held at their offices in downtown los angeles

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 59.4%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th 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: 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 8.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.73; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 61.7% of revenue deployed · 59.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $170K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $21K · 29 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.