· Public charity
National Association for Urban Debate Leagues
Advancing debate education in urban public schools to amplify youth voices and to develop confidence for future success.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 19 grants below total $326,142 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $372,698 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $46,556 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $9k
- $10k–50k18 grants · $317k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CHICAGO DEBATES COMMISSION | $40,864 |
| MINNESOTA URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE | $26,858 |
| SILICON VALLEY URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE | $24,132 |
| WASHINGTON URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE | $22,050 |
| LOS ANGELES METRO DEBATE LEAGUE | $20,713 |
| TULSA DEBATE LEAGUE INC | $18,269 |
| DALLAS URBAN DEBATE ALLIANCE | $18,033 |
| BAY AREA URBAN DEBATE COMMISSION | $16,669 |
| PORTLAND URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE | $13,873 |
| SACRAMENTO URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE | $13,733 |
| DETROIT URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE | $13,729 |
| KANSAS CITY URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE | $13,073 |
| DENVER URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE | $12,885 |
| NASHVILLE URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE | $12,881 |
| HOUSTON URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE | $12,833 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY22–25, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
18 repeat relationships — 15 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $66k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- LALOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN DEBATE COMMISSION7× · 2017–2025 · $373k · revenue +71%
- TCTHE CHICAGO DEBATE COMMISSION7× · 2017–2025 · $243k · revenue +31%
- WUWASHINGTON URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE INC6× · 2017–2025 · $160k · revenue +67% · 30% of their budget
Funded once
- MUMILWAUKEE URBAN DEBATE LEAGUEone grant, 2018 · $8k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Advancing debate education in urban public schools to amplify youth voices and to develop confidence for future success.
To bring competitive policy debate to the high schools and middle schools of the baltimore city public school system as an after-school activity.
Umoja Debate League is a 501c3 nonprofit organization that uses debate as our vehicle to teach Detroit youth ages 11-18 transferable life skills such as critical thinking confidence conflict resolution increased literacy and…
Promote educational interests of Schools debate & speech students
Teaching Debate to Grade 4-8th Students
The city club of cleveland's mission is to create conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive. we do this in pursuit of our vision of strong, informed individuals and communities that prize freedom of speech and civil, civic…
The national speech and debate association connects, supports, and inspires a diverse community committed to empowering students toward higher education through competitive speech and debate.
The brooklyn debate league supports schools and students in competitive speech & debate through online and in-person programming
This is a high school student club parent organization. it's determined by IRS as exempt under section 501(c)(3).
The MILLER SPEECH AND DEBATE BOOSTERS connects, supports, and inspires a diverse community committed to empowering students through competitive speech and debate.
To engage urban students in intellectually stimulating debate programs to improve academic outcomes and leadership skills and foster civic participation
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New York City Urban Debate League Inc and the most unlike its peers is Augsburg University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 23 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN DEBATE COMMISSION ↗
- Who funds THE CHICAGO DEBATE COMMISSION ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE INC ↗
- Who funds DALLAS URBAN DEBATE ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds MIAMI DADE URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds Silicon Valley Urban Debate League ↗
- Who funds BAY AREA URBAN DEBATE COMMISSION ↗
- Who funds HOUSTON URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK CITY URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE INC ↗
- Who funds BOSTON DEBATE LEAGUE INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Denver Urban Debate League ↗
- Who funds AUGSBURG UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds TULSA DEBATE LEAGUE INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds DEBATE-KANSAS CITY ↗
- Who funds Nashville Debate League Inc ↗
- Who funds Portland Urban Debate League ↗
- Who funds Sacramento Urban Debate League ↗
- Who funds GLENN PELHAM FOUNDATION FOR DEBATE EDUCATION INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization National Association for Urban Debate Leagues funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Boston Debate League Incorporated — 7% of income from government
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.