Silver Lakes Gymnastics a California Benefit Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010946196
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Apple Valley, CA, USA
Phone
7609850341
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recreation& Sports N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$327,595
Expenses
$177,851
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • BEATRICE SOUTH (DIRECTOR): $12,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

This nbsp; organization nbsp; provides nbsp; gymnastics nbsp; classes nbsp; in nbsp; a nbsp; rural nbsp; area nbsp; of nbsp; southern nbsp; California nbsp; known nbsp; as nbsp; the nbsp; high nbsp; desert nbsp; it nbsp; engage nbsp; students nbsp; in nbsp; physical nbsp; activity nbsp; to nbsp; develop nbsp; their nbsp; interest nbsp; in nbsp; the nbsp; sport nbsp; of nbsp; gymnastics nbsp; some nbsp; of nbsp; the nbsp; students nbsp; attending nbsp; go nbsp; on nbsp; to nbsp; compete nbsp; in nbsp; a nbsp; local nbsp; regional nbsp; state nbsp; and nbsp; national nbsp; level nbsp; competitions nbsp; sponsored nbsp; by nbsp; the nbsp; gymnastics nbsp; national nbsp; organization nbsp; this nbsp; organization nbsp; sponsors nbsp; students nbsp; at nbsp; various nbsp; levels nbsp; who nbsp; would nbsp; not nbsp; be nbsp; able nbsp; to nbsp; afford nbsp; the nbsp; instruction nbsp; costs nbsp; as nbsp; well nbsp; as nbsp; the nbsp; competition nbsp; costs

What it reported doing in 2025

Paid the gymnastics coaching meet fees training shorts and competition leos for 16 kids

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 31
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 26.4%; rating input score 26
  • Program expense ratio: 48.6%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Missing
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 45.7%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 37.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 26.4% of revenue deployed · 48.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $35K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 26/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.