California Regional Training Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204753346
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Palo Alto, CA, USA
Phone
9252124533
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,077,550
Expenses
$744,591
Assets
$481,298
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • LORI AYRES (EXECUTIVE DI): $184,000 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 California regional training center also known as the cardinal wrestling club builds champions in wrestling and in life, expands access to the sport, and improves the communities it serves.

What it reported doing in 2025

The cardinal wrestling club is dedicated to fostering the development of wrestlers from youth through senior levels, providing comprehensive training and competition support under a membership model. Our program includes: cardinal wrestling club: delivers high-quality coaching to youth and high school athletes, including weekly practices and coaching support at competitions. The program also focuses on recruiting and mentoring future wrestling coaches to sustain and expand the sport. California regional training center - developmental level: hosts specialized practices for u16 to u20 athletes who meet the criteria for the regional training center (rtc), preparing them for higher levels of competition. California regional training center - senior level: provides advanced training opportunities and competition coaching for senior-level athletes who satisfy the rtc criteria, aiming to enhance their skills and competitive performance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 97
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $128.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.9%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.7%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $705K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $184K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 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.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.