Skip to content

· Public charity

Oakland Warthogs Youth Rugby Program Inc

The organization facilitiates youth rugby practice and events as well as, fostering community service opportunities for players and coaches.

$181k
Granted FY2020
9
Grants FY2020
3
States reached
$18k
Largest
01What it funds
01FY2020 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $82,542, the rows itemized in this filing. The $180,681 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $98,139 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 · FY2020

  • Under $10k3 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $68k
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Inner City Rugby of Nashville$17,500
Guardian Gym$10,000
James Joseph Foundation$10,000
Olympic Club Foundation$10,000
Memphis Inner City Rugby$10,000
ICEF Rugby$10,000
City Team Ministries - Oakland$5,042
Women for Rugby$5,000
US Rugby Foundation$5,000
02The need
02

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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–20) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 72% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%City Team Ministries - Oakland: $5k → 10%Olympic Club Foundation: $10k → 10%US Rugby Foundation: $5k → 11%ICEF Rugby: $10k → 14%Inner City Rugby of Nashville: $18k → 14%James Joseph Foundation: $10k → 13%Women for Rugby: $5k → 10%Guardian Gym: $10k → 10%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.
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 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
United States of America Rugby Football Union Ltd

To develop and administer the sport of rugby in the united states to the highest international standards and to represent the interests of the united states in the world rugby community.

—
2
Rugby La

None

Recreation & Sports
3
Indiana Youth Rugby Foundation Inc

Iyrf manages the operation of youth rugby in the state of indiana including the collection of grants, donations, and player fees. iyrf schedules matches and conducts state playoffs for boys & girls teams.

Recreation & Sports
4
Sfgg Rugby Foundation

The sfgg rugby foundation is organized exclusively for charitable, scientific and educational purposes, more specifically to organize, supervise, administer, evaluate and modify, when appropriate the athletic program for the community of…

Recreation & Sports
5
Usa Rugby Charitable Foundation Dba Usa Rugby Trust

To support, promote, develop and grow the sport of rugby at all levels in the united states by providing financial support to usa rugby.

—
6
49er Rugby Foundation

We are an alumni based charity foundation formed to support the varsity rugby team at California State University Long Beach and its players students to provide them an opportunity of success during their time at the school and with the…

Recreation & Sports
7
Scyr Inc

To govern youth and high school rugby in Southern California, including organizing and running league competitions and tournaments, promoting the continued growth of the game through outreach and education, and prioritizing the safety and…

Recreation & Sports
8
City Fields Foundation
Recreation & Sports
9
Santa Monica Rugby Club

Sponsorship and promotion of amateur rugby.

Recreation & Sports
10
United States Rugby Football Foundation

To promote amateur rugby football throughout the u.s. by making grants to organizations and individuals supporting the usrff goals and by sponsoring programs that encourage the development of youth rugby.

—
11
Santa Clara Youth Rugby

Silicon Valley Rugby Football Club SVRFC is rugby program based in San Jose California and the surrounding areas. SVRFC's stated mission is encourage and grow the sport of rugby in the Silicon Valley and surrounding areas. SVRFC was…

Recreation & Sports
12
Madison United Rugby Inc

Madison united rugby supports and develops amateur athletes for national and international amateur competition in the sport of rugby. to advance the primary purpose, madison united rugby will coordinate and develop rugby related endeavors…

Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Olympic Club Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Taco Jitsu Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the grantee network

8 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. 8 of the 9 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INNER CITY RUGBY OF NASHVILLE: $17,500 · OtherINNER CITY RUGBY OF NASHVILLEWOMEN FOR RUGBY INC: $5,000 · OtherWOMEN FOR RUGBY INCMemphis Inner City Rugby: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentMemphis Inner City RugbyTACO JITSU INC: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentTACO JITSU INCJOSEPH JAMES MORELLI LEGACY FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · EducationJOSEPH JAMES MORELLI LEGACY…INNER CITY EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EducationINNER CITY EDUCATION FOUNDA…OLYMPIC CLUB FOUNDATION: $10,000 · ReligionOLYMPIC CLUB FOUNDAT…CITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $5,042 · ReligionCITYTEAM MINISTRIESUNITED STATES RUGBY FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Recreation & Sports
Other$22,500Youth Development$20,000Education$20,000Religion$15,042Recreation & Sports$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTACO JITSU INC: $10,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetOLYMPIC CLUB FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetJOSEPH JAMES MORELLI LEGACY FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 8.5% of budgetINNER CITY EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $5,042 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED STATES RUGBY FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetWOMEN FOR RUGBY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 43% 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.

American Online Giving Foundation IncDE6.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Oakland Warthogs Youth Rugby Program Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Oakland Warthogs Youth Rugby Program Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 9 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Oakland Warthogs Youth Rugby Program’s filings →

    More from the funding graph