California Resources and Training

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943212533
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Job Training

Reported finances

Revenue
$131,168
Expenses
$93,317
Assets
$16,532
Liabilities
$5,575

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SELMA TAYLOR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • SELMA TAYLOR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • GORDON P LEJEUNE (CHAIRMAN)
  • TERRY COLTRA (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. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Mission is to assist in building capacity and encourage and stimulate partnerships among small businesses, technical assistance providers, and lending institutions.

What it reported doing in 2016

The previous research and development and market assessment gave us direction and the new program focus which is to develop a pathway for small and minority businesses to access contracts from the private and public sectors utilizing technology based platforms. Using technology solutions has been a key component of carats programs for the last six years. The new program allows us to merge previous program priority mandates with the application of new program focus and applied technology. Carat also developed strategic collaborative partnerships with two key organizations that would enhance our outreach to targeted small businesses and facilitate contract financing. Customized the training program components consisting of six on-site training sessions. The training sessions included the topics of 1) contracts opportunities 2) individual company accessibility profile 3) effective capability statement 4)business compliance and best practices 5) contract financing 6) cyber securitysecured a partnership with a management company to utilize their proprietary business management tool small business pro.designed an interview and on-line screening tool to recruit small and minority businesses to participate in the program.attended statewide small business conferences of ethnic chambers, small business organizations meetings, business association meetings, and small and minority vendor meetings to market the training program and recruit businesses that met the selection criteria. Developed a partnership with company that had an electronic outreach and data base of minority small businesses interested in contracting

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 30
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.1%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.9%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 90.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 143.4% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 118.6% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.1% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $83K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2015 to 2016
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.