Japan Icu Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
134158264
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2128703386
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Corporate Foundations
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,453,761
Expenses
$1,287,856
Assets
$1,026,771
Liabilities
$342,881

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL HASTINGS (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • AKI TAKADA (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL HASTINGS (PRESIDENT & CEO): $244,079 total reported compensation
  • AKI TAKADA (VICE PRESIDENT): $136,346 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the japan icu foundation is to work with international christian university to nurture global citizens who contribute to the well-being of humanity.

What it reported doing in 2024

The japan icu foundation fulfills its mission by providing scholarships and grants to students at international christian university (icu) and other higher education institutions in japan. They manage a variety of international education and research programs, and assist icu in the construction and renovation of campus facilities. The foundation also helps to recruit international students to attend icu and other institutions in japan and raises funds for icu in north america.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 68.9%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $32.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.4%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.5%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61% of revenue deployed · 68.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $887K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $244K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.