United States-asia Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251601135
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washngton, DC, USA
Phone
2023864520
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Promotion of International Understanding

Reported finances

Revenue
$82,278
Expenses
$389,465
Assets
$1,637,578
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard Quick (President)
  • Marsha Lefkovits (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Richard Quick (President): $284,000 total reported compensation
  • Marsha Lefkovits (Vice President): $284,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Foundation's mission is to enhance mutual understanding and promote Democratic values with countries located primarily in but not limited to Asia. The Foundation has no advocacy role, it does not take positions on political issues, it does not engage in any lobbying and does not accept contributions from foreign sources. The foundation is independent, non-partisan and has no affiliation with any political party.

What it reported doing in 2025

Due to the COVID pandemic and changed in State Department regulations in 2020, we suspended our primary programs that required personal contact and international travel. We focused on activities that would enhance our vital understanding of the long-term impact of our relations with other countries. Now we are looking at expanding our international cooperation and utilizing this information to adjust future programs to better meet our goals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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 the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 56
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -373.4%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.2; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 145.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $389K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $284K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.