After Athletics
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 994510281
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- San Diego, CA, USA
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Baseball, Softball
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $48,448
- Expenses
- $48,121
- Assets
- $327
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
People named in this filing
- James Langley (Chaiperson)
- Toalei (Board Member)
- Stephen Walling (Board Member)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To foster the personal and athletic growth of youth providing them with the resources skills and experiences needed to succeed both on and off the field. We are committed to promoting healthy lifestyles encouraging sportsmanship and teamwork and building a safe inclusive and supportive community for all participants.
What it reported doing in 2025
After Athletics sponsored and funded the installation of new fencing and maintenance upgrades for the Power Surge Softball program and Hickman Youth Athletics Association we organized and hosted various fundraising events to secure the necessary funds for the refurbishment of these sports fields. Our efforts aimed to enhance the playing conditions and overall experience for the athletes involved in these programs fostering a supportive and conducive environment for youth sports development.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 60
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 59.9%; rating input score 60
- Program expense ratio: 60.3%; rating input score 60
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.7%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 59.9% of revenue deployed · 60.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $29K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.