· Public charity
USA Hockey Inc
Usa hockey, inc.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k4 grants · $31k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $356k
- $50k–250k11 grants · $949k
- $250k+4 grants · $3.1M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| US HOCKEY LEAGUE | $1,277,748 |
| COLLEGE HOCKEY INC | $775,000 |
| NORTH AMERICAN HOCKEY LEAGUE | $556,600 |
| NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE | $484,753 |
| SERVING THE AMERICAN RINKS | $125,000 |
| MINNESOTA HOCKEY | $121,930 |
| MASSACHUSETTS HOCKEY | $100,250 |
| NEW YORK STATE AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION | $98,933 |
| MID-AMERICAN HOCKEY ASSOCIATION | $90,182 |
| ATLANTIC AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION | $82,990 |
| MICHIGAN AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION | $82,930 |
| CALIFORNIA AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION | $67,568 |
| NEW ENGLAND DISTRICT HOCKEY | $67,337 |
| AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ILLINOIS | $61,542 |
| POTOMAC VALLEY AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION | $50,745 |
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 (FY17–17, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +63% since the first grant, against +41% for the ones you funded once.
38 repeat relationships — 33 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- CHCOLLEGE HOCKEY INC8× · 2017–2024 · $4.9M · revenue +25% · 95% of their budget
- NANORTH AMERICAN HOCKEY LEAGUE8× · 2017–2024 · $3.4M · revenue +134%
- UHUSA HOCKEY FOUNDATION2× · 2018–2023 · $1.5M · revenue +36%
Funded once
- ACAMERICAN COLLEGIATE HOCKEY ASSOCIATIONgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +41%
- AMATLANTIC METROPOLITAN HOCKEY LEAGUEone grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue -17%
- UWUSA Warriors Ice Hockey Program Inc USAWIHPgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +75%
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.
The organization's mission is to develop and encourage sportsmanship among all players, encourage and improve standards of hockey in the state of maine, unite all maine amateur youth hockey teams into one association, conduct annual…
Empowering youth through memorable hockey experiences, fostering respect, discipline, and sportsmanship, while nurturing talent and emphasizing hard work and team spirit.
To develop, promote & regulate youth hockey in the State of Wyoming.
Youth hockey development
Providing youth sports activites
Develop hockey skills in youth hockey players and provide a competitive team to compete with other teams in the midwest.
Promotion of hockey as a sport
Educate youth hockey players in the fundamentals of teamwork, sportsmanship, and skill development.
To provide the opportunity to as many participants as possible, within the boundaries of the superior amateur hockey association (saha), to develop their person and player through hockey.
To provide the youth of Chelan and Douglas Counties the means and opportunity to participate in a youth hockey program through volunteer organization and coaching.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is South Dakota Amateur Hockey Association and the most unlike its peers is Atlantic Metropolitan Hockey League. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 28 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
37 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 37 of the 42 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 COLLEGE HOCKEY INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH AMERICAN HOCKEY LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds USA HOCKEY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA HOCKEY INC ↗
- Who funds SERVING THE AMERICAN RINKS DBA UNITED STATES ICE RINK ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Michigan Amateur Hockey Association ↗
- Who funds MASSACHUSETTS HOCKEY INC ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK STATE AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds Mid American District Hockey Inc ↗
- Who funds MID ATLANTIC AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds NEW ENGLAND YANKEE HOCKEY CONFERENCE INC - USA HOCKEY NE DIST ↗
- Who funds AMATUER HOCKEY ASSOC ILLINOIS INC ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds POTOMAC VALLEY AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION INC PVAHA ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOC INC ↗
- Who funds TEXAS AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds STATEWIDE AMATEUR HOCKEY OF FLORIDA INC ↗
- Who funds COLORADO AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds PACIFIC NORTHWEST AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds CAROLINA AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Alaska State Hockey Association Inc ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI HOCKEY INC ↗
- Who funds MID-WEST AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds NORTH DAKOTA AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds ATLANTIC JUNIOR HOCKEY LEAGUE INC ↗
- Who funds MONTANA AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH AMERICAN 3 HOCKEY LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds UTAH HOCKEY AN AMATEUR ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds IDAHO AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISTRICT HOCKEY INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN COLLEGIATE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds SOUTH DAKOTA AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds OREGON STATE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds NEVADA AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds ATLANTIC METROPOLITAN HOCKEY LEAGUE ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: USA Hockey 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 USA Hockey Inc 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.
- Usa Warriors Ice Hockey Program Inc Usawihp — 37% of income from government
- Massachusetts Hockey Inc — 12% 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.