Silicon Valley Urban Debate League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471097110
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4087084337
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,085,877
Expenses
$1,231,726
Assets
$291,103
Liabilities
$109,454

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rolland Janairo (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Rolland Janairo (CEO): $251,738 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to empower Silicon Valley students, regardless of their race or socioeconomic status, to reach their full potential to become professional and community leaders by teaching critical thinking and communication skills through speech and debate programming.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the period of July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025, SVUDL worked with 19 high school partners in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, serving nearly 2,500 students. Of these students, 856 students participated in the highest level of involvement attending 10+ practices and at least 1 tournament. In addition to afterschool Speech & Debate programming, SVUDL has been more active in the classroom working with our high school partners to develop a customized plan that also includes Speech & Debate Curriculum offerings and Debate Centered Instruction (DCI). This comprehensive approach provides for rigorous instruction, student engagement, and teacher support. SVUDL staff and Teacher Coaches spent more than 36,000 hours with students throughout the year. In addition, students participated in 12 Professional Access visits. Lastly, independent research has shown once again the participation in any of SVUDL's three programs was correlated with higher GPAs for participating students compared to their non-participating peers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.1%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 73.2%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.1% of revenue deployed · 73.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $902K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $252K · 17 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.