Orange County Football Academy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464923379
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Irvine, CA, USA
Phone
7146589360
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,334,909
Expenses
$3,845,639
Assets
$1,331,628
Liabilities
$1,398,904

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • RYAN BERTONI (EXECUTIVE DIR.): $230,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Orange county football academy, inc. Is organized and operated exclusively for public and charitable purposes by providing a flag football league to the youth of California.

What it reported doing in 2024

Building on the momentum of 2023, the orange county football academy experienced another year of record-breaking growth and achievement. Registrations climbed by nearly 3,000 athletes, with female participation surging 96%, underscoring our continued leadership in expanding access and opportunity for girls in football. We proudly hosted the 9th annual ipsf winter bowl, welcoming a record 1,600 participants from more than 30 irvine unified school district schools, making it one of the largest youth football events in the region. Our athletes also shined on the national stage, as a team of girls from our league captured the nfl flag 15u national championship, a landmark moment that reflects the elite talent and development emerging from our programs. 2024 was a breakout year defined by unprecedented growth, championship success, and the empowerment of the next generation of athletes leading the charge for the future of football.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 program spending has grown recently. 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: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 54
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 83.3%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: 46%; rating input score 46; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.3%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.05; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.8% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.9% of revenue deployed · 83.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $230K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $564K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.