Korea Youth Promotion Association of USA Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 161651233
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2012–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Flushing, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5167353434
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Amateur Sports
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $92,827
- Expenses
- $117,406
- Assets
- $122,951
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- YEON HWAN PARK (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- YEON HWAN PARK (PRESIDENT)
- YEON HEE PARK (ADVISORY COU)
- EDWARD PARK (SECRETARY)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote the flow of mutual understanding and reliance, strengthen cooperative, and better knowledge of the each culture through exchanging between youth of south korea and youth of USA.
What it reported doing in 2025
Younger instructor training academy: it is organized exclusively educational purpose the making of distributions to organizations that qualify under section 501 (c)(3) of the irc.this program particopated by board members make a high developed course in continuing studies for those who are interested in being a future leader of taekwondo in USA.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 61% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 97
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 91%; rating input score 91
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -26.5%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.05; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $107K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2012 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.