Orange County Water Polo Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260842452
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Laguna Niguel, CA, USA
Phone
9499393169
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Swimming & Other Water Recreation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$620,732
Expenses
$598,196
Assets
$41,024
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PETER ASIC (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT)
  • ADAM SZEREMETA (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PETER ASIC (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT): $41,517 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide structured and constructive practices where athletes can develop character and master water polo skills. The objective is to recruit athletes at a young age and focus on developing a solid foundation of technical and tactical practice, patience, and persistence.

What it reported doing in 2024

World class coaches our coaches are some of the best in the business. They know the game of water polo inside and out. They played high-level water polo themselves in high school, college, and at the national level. That's why orange county water polo is the go-to water polo club for developing players' skills and techniques from 10 & under through college. Our club's focus is to build good, all-around players through hard work and positive outcomes. And we take great pride when our athletes succeed off the pool deck as well.

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 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 40
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.6%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 95%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 11th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.6% of revenue deployed · 95% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $568K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $42K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes related organizations
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.