Korean-American Senior Mutual Association (KASMA)

Legal name: Korean-american Senior Mutual Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
113323060
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2019
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Flushing, NY, United States
Phone
(718) 762-3515 / 6440
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cultural, Ethnic Awareness

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,226,074
Expenses
$4,192,138
Assets
$1,826,883
Liabilities
$10,318

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kwang S Bae (President)
  • Sung W Kim (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Kwang S Bae (President)
  • Yun P Na (Chairman)
  • Sung W Kim (Vice President)

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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

KASMA’s stated purpose is its “3개(3가지?) 자부(3구?)” (three core purposes): (1) burial-benefit/relief support for members, (2) support/relief for member services, and (3) member funeral support through member contributions.

What it reported doing in 2019

Social and Legal Service Program. Schlorship payments $7,000 to 7 high school students. Suppot payment of monthly condolatory money amount of $59,645 by KASMA fund to the highest age of 107 persons during one year. Rice sharing of prime cost worth $20,400 of 1,700 packs to 800 seniors, needy persons and 30 charitable organizations. Free legal consulting services of 58 persons.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.6%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 97.4%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 42.8%; rating input score 43; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 96.6% of revenue deployed · 97.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2011 to 2019
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.