Central California Adaptive Sports Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471155676
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Shaver Lake, CA, USA
Phone
5592332500
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$407,265
Expenses
$355,822
Assets
$426,302
Liabilities
$204

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RANDY COFFMAN (President & CEO)
  • BILL MORSE (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • RANDY COFFMAN (President & CEO): $41,880 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Central California adaptive sports center (ccasc) is organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes. Specically, this organization will help the distressed by conducting programs that enhance the quality of life of people with disabilities through outdoor adventure activities. The program will empower participants in their daily lives, and have a positive enduring effect on confidence, health, independence, an overall well-being of those with disabilities.

What it reported doing in 2024

The activity of ccasc has and will continue to include year-round adaptive recreation and adventure programs incorporating the latest therapeutic practices. For example, during winter months, participants have engage in snow skiing with adaptive equipment. Ccasc facilitate activities in a professional manner, and collaborate with other organizations, with the continued goal of providing programming that has a lasting impact on the quality of the participants' lives. The programs relies on a professional, skilled staff as the key to providing an experience of the higherst quality for our participants. To achieve this ccasc focuses on the staff training and certifications, professional development, and continuous improvement of the programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th 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; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.6%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.8%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.4% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $356K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $42K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.