Lafc Sports Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474683101
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2135199895
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$681,144
Expenses
$938,001
Assets
$812,316
Liabilities
$1,063,722

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LARRY FREEDMAN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (UNTIL 08/24))
  • VANESSA MONTES (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (FROM 08/24))

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIGITTE FLORES (MANAGER): $97,891 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Support underserved los angeles youth by creating new soccer pitches, increasing access to athletic programs, supporting innovative educational programs in public schools, and providing leadership development and mentorship services.

What it reported doing in 2024

See schedule o.to support underserved los angeles youth by creating new soccer pitches, increasing access to athletic programs, supporting innovative educational programs in public schools, and providing leadership development and mentorship services.by leveraging the lafc brand and its dedicated, impassioned community of fans and stakeholders, the foundation has positively impacted over 50,000 disadvantaged people and underserved youth in the greater los angeles area. This includes the development of 45 futsal courts by end of 2024, 6 completed in 2024. Other programs include the funding of the youth leadership program (ylp) at the bresee foundation, the falcon scholars programs in addition to providing access to health and wellbeing support through free soccer programming, mentorship and educational programming in partnership with city year, and provide career development opportunities. The foundation also supported the alliance, collaboration of 12 professional sports teams in greater la, to pursue change in communities of color by driving investment and impact for social justice through sport. And we're even prouder that we could host two high school interns for the summer.in addition, we funded 5 youth soccer programs in the greater los angeles community helping to eliminate the pay to play model.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.5%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 61.4%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $213.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: 97.8%; rating input score 98; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -37.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.87; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.31; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.5% of revenue deployed · 61.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $576K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $98K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 filed related-organization links
  • 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.