Sacramento Urban Debate League
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 464604039
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Sacramento, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9167120782
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Education N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $200,741
- Expenses
- $101,166
- Assets
- $177,548
- Liabilities
- $62,490
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Stephen Goldberg (President)
People named in this filing
- Abby Gray (Director)
- Stephen Goldberg (President)
- Kevin Woodruff (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote debate and debate related activities among high school students in the Sacramento region.
What it reported doing in 2025
SUDL provides policy debate education and competition for low-income students and students of color in the Sacramento, California metropolitan area. SUDL does so by creating debate teams at local public high schools, training coaches, coaching students, and traveling with students to compete at weekend tournaments. According to the National Association of Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL), debate is an academic sport that builds reading, research, communication, and critical thinking skills. Each year high school policy debaters throughout the country debate a single complex policy question, or resolution, for an entire year.Debaters conduct extensive research on a Resolution online and in libraries and then develop arguments for and against the Resolution with the assistance of SUDL coaches and teachers. Debaters hone their arguments in after school practices and compete at weekend tournaments. Two-person teams participate in a series of 75-minute debates and each team alternates sides, arguing for a Resolution in one round and against it in the next. Competitive debate has generally not been available to students of urban public schools; urban debate programs seek to remedy this.Significant research studies demonstrate the many benefits of policy debate and how it develops literacy in addition to preparing students to be successful during and after high school. These benefits come from the reading, writing, speaking, research, communication, creativity, collaboration, civic awareness, and critical thinking that debate demands from its participants. Studies demonstrate a significant rise in GPA and college enrollment rates for debaters when compared to their peers, a decrease of dropout rates, and an increased readiness for 21st century careers. Debate also improves student literacy by encouraging large amounts of in-depth research, reading, and then writing briefs which students must complete in preparation for their competitions.During 2025, SUDL coached over 50 students at four high schools. SUDL also chaperoned debaters at 16 weekend debate tournaments, 10 of which were held in-person and the remainder of which were held on-line. Seniors had a 100% high school graduation rate in 2025.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 64
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 68
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 44.5%; rating input score 45
- Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $194 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 49.6%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.76; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 34.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 44.5% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $89K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.