Skip to content
National Association for Urban Debate Leagues at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$373k
Granted FY2025still arriving
19
Grants FY2025still arriving
14
States reached
$41k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$1.5MRecreation & Sports$59kYouth Development$52kScience & Tech$31kPublic Benefit$13kHuman Services$7k
02FY2025 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 19 grants below total $326,142, the rows itemized in this filing. The $372,698 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $46,556 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $9k
  • $10k–50k18 grants · $317k
$13,733
Median grant
14
States reached
$2.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%TULSA DEBATE LEAGUE INC: $18k → 15%TULSA DEBATE LEAGUES: $7k → 15%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
CA
CO
MO
TN
DC
OK
GA
TX
FL
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.6M · 18 repeat orgs$74k to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
1

Total granted

$1.6M
$8k

Still filing today

78%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $66k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationYouth DevelopmentHuman ServicesOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • LA
    LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN DEBATE COMMISSION
    7× · 2017–2025 · $373k · revenue +71%
  • TC
    THE CHICAGO DEBATE COMMISSION
    7× · 2017–2025 · $243k · revenue +31%
  • WU
    WASHINGTON URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE INC
    6× · 2017–2025 · $160k · revenue +67% · 30% of their budget

Funded once

  • MU
    MILWAUKEE URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE
    one grant, 2018 · $8k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
National Association for Urban Debate Leagues

Advancing debate education in urban public schools to amplify youth voices and to develop confidence for future success.

Education
2
Baltimore Urban Debate League Inc

To bring competitive policy debate to the high schools and middle schools of the baltimore city public school system as an after-school activity.

Education
3
Umoja Debate Team

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…

Arts & Culture
4
Westwood Debate & Speech Boosters

Promote educational interests of Schools debate & speech students

Education
5
Uplift
Education
6
Fremont Debate Academy

Teaching Debate to Grade 4-8th Students

Education
7
The City Club of Cleveland

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…

Education
8
National Forensic League D/B/a National Speech and Debate Assoc

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.

Arts & Culture
9
Brooklyn Debate League Inc

The brooklyn debate league supports schools and students in competitive speech & debate through online and in-person programming

Education
10
Dulles Hs Speech & Debate Parents Organization

This is a high school student club parent organization. it's determined by IRS as exempt under section 501(c)(3).

—
11
Miller Speech and Debate Boosters

The MILLER SPEECH AND DEBATE BOOSTERS connects, supports, and inspires a diverse community committed to empowering students through competitive speech and debate.

—
12
Rhode Island Urban Debate League

To engage urban students in intellectually stimulating debate programs to improve academic outcomes and leadership skills and foster civic participation

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New York City Urban Debate League Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/18
Grantees still filing
9/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN DEBATE COMMISSION: $373,007 · EducationLOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN DEBATE COMMISSIONTHE CHICAGO DEBATE COMMISSION: $242,794 · EducationTHE CHICAGO DEBATE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE INC: $159,547 · EducationWASHINGTON URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE INCDALLAS URBAN DEBATE ALLIANCE: $145,895 · EducationDALLAS URBAN DEBATE ALLIANCEMIAMI DADE URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE: $104,208 · EducationMIAMI DADE URBAN DEBATE LEAGUESilicon Valley Urban Debate League: $94,211 · EducationSilicon Valley Urban Debate LeagueBAY AREA URBAN DEBATE COMMISSION: $87,061 · EducationBAY AREA URBAN DEBATE COMMISSIONHOUSTON URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE: $71,085 · EducationNEW YORK CITY URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE INC: $68,070 · Education+4 more: $93,011 · Education+4 moreBOSTON DEBATE LEAGUE INCORPORATED: $44,238 · Youth DevelopmentDEBATE-KANSAS CITY: $18,714 · Youth DevelopmentNashville Debate League Inc: $18,092 · Youth DevelopmentGLENN PELHAM FOUNDATION FOR DEBATE EDUCATION INC: $11,973 · Youth DevelopmentREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $31,000 · OtherDETROIT URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE: $19,018 · OtherMETRO MEMPHIS URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE: $16,957 · OtherST LOUIS URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE: $16,537 · OtherMILWAUKEE URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE: $7,858 · OtherTULSA DEBATE LEAGUE INCORPORATED: $25,144 · Human Services
Education$1,438,889Youth Development$93,017Other$91,370Human Services$25,144

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN DEBATE COMMISSION: $373,007 over 7y, 8.3% of budgetTHE CHICAGO DEBATE COMMISSION: $242,794 over 7y, 10% of budgetWASHINGTON URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE INC: $159,547 over 6y, 30% of budgetDALLAS URBAN DEBATE ALLIANCE: $145,895 over 6y, 5.2% of budgetMIAMI DADE URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE: $104,208 over 4y, 28% of budgetSilicon Valley Urban Debate League: $94,211 over 5y, 6.3% of budgetBAY AREA URBAN DEBATE COMMISSION: $87,061 over 5y, 6.6% of budgetHOUSTON URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE: $71,085 over 4y, 27% of budgetNEW YORK CITY URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE INC: $68,070 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetBOSTON DEBATE LEAGUE INCORPORATED: $44,238 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetDenver Urban Debate League: $38,547 over 4y, 14% of budgetAUGSBURG UNIVERSITY: $26,858 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTULSA DEBATE LEAGUE INCORPORATED: $25,144 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetDEBATE-KANSAS CITY: $18,714 over 2y, 5.8% of budgetNashville Debate League Inc: $18,092 over 2y, 4.9% of budgetPortland Urban Debate League: $13,873 over 1y, 13% of budgetSacramento Urban Debate League: $13,733 over 1y, 8.5% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Vanguard Charitable E…Paypal Charitable Giv…Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgramPA6.1× affinity6 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization National Association for Urban Debate Leagues funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Association for Urban Debate Leagues. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Boston Debate League Incorporated: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 23 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on National Association for Urban Debate Leagues’ filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home