Skip to content
Southern California Tennis Association at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Southern California Tennis Association

Scta is a non-profit organization, composed of member clubs, that gets and keeps southern californians engaged in tennis.

$402k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$130k
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 2024.

Recreation & Sports$1.0MPhilanthropy$71k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $372k
$63,865
Median grant
1
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LAKEWOOD TENNIS CENTER$129,768
YOUTH TENNIS SAN DIEGO$118,219
RANCHO SANTA FE ASSOCIATION$63,865
JACK KRAMER CLUB$60,556
YOUTH TENNIS SAN DIEGO$15,000
YOUTH TENNIS SAN DIEGO$15,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 93% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%TOP SEED TENNIS ACADEMY: $69k → 10%SAN DIEGO TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $46k → 11%JACK KRAMER CLUB: $61k → 14%THE SLOANE STEPHENS FOUNDATION INC: $5k → 11%ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $5k → 10%SAN DIEGO TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $6k → 11%PARENT BOOSTER USA INC: $14k → 14%GREATER SAN DIEGO CITY TENNIS COUNCIL: $5k → 11%NEIGHBORHOOD JR TENNIS PROGRAM: $6k → 14%NA TENNIS LLC: $76k → 11%SC TENNIS INC: $60k → 14%RANCHO SANTA FE ASSOCIATION: $71k → 11%NEIGHBORHOOD JR TENNIS PROGRAM: $5k → 14%RANCHO SANTA FE ASSOCIATION: $64k → 11%LAKEWOOD TENNIS CENTER: $136k → 14%USTA BILLIE JEAN KING GIRLS 1618 TOURNAMENT: $79k → 11%LAKEWOOD TENNIS CENTER: $130k → 14%YOUTH TENNIS SAN DIEGO: $118k → 11%SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TENNIS ASSOCIATION FDN: $25k → 14%YOUTH TENNIS SAN DIEGO: $71k → 11%TGA SPORTS FOUNDATION: $7k → 14%YOUTH TENNIS SAN DIEGO: $15k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO LOS ANGELES: $5k → 14%YOUTH TENNIS SAN DIEGO: $15k → 11%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

62%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$682k · 5 repeat orgs$415k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
12

Total granted

$682k
$354k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-5%
+169%

Still filing today

80%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $61k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’20’21’23’24
Recreation & SportsPhilanthropyYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • LT
    LAKEWOOD TENNIS CENTER
    2× · 2023–2024 · $266k
  • YT
    YOUTH TENNIS SAN DIEGO
    2× · 2023–2024 · $219k · revenue -7%
  • CANDID
    2× · 2023–2024 · $135k · revenue -5%

Funded once

  • US
    UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATEDgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $79k · revenue +40%
  • NT
    NA TENNIS LLC
    one grant, 2023 · $76k
  • TS
    TOP SEED TENNIS ACADEMY
    one grant, 2023 · $69k
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
Tennis Officials of San Antonio Association
Recreation & Sports
2
Crossroads Tennis Association
—
3
Donkor Tennis & Education Foundation Inc
Recreation & Sports
4
Get a Grip Tennis Association Inc
Youth Development
5
United States Tennis Association Southwest Section Inc

Our mission is to promote and develop the growth of tennis in the southwest

—
6
Robinson Tennis Academy
Youth Development
7
Southern Tennis Association Inc

Growing tennis to inspire healthier people and communities everywhere.

—
8
Tri County Community Tennis Association

Promotes, develops, and introduces usta to locations in ms

Recreation & Sports
9
California Table Tennis

California table tennis is a professionally run athletics club designed for table tennis enthusiasts and provides an environment in which members can improve their games under the tutelage of world class coaches.

Recreation & Sports
10
Maureen Connolly Brinker Tennis Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
11
Tennis Club of San Antonio

Tennis Club of San Antonio (TCSA) is a non-profit diversity and inclusion organization devoted to promoting diversity in tennis in the San Antonio area all while bringing people together to make a difference in the community and lives of…

Recreation & Sports
12
Tennis for Life

Tennis for Life Foundation is dedicated to fostering mental wellness, emotional resilience, and suicide prevention through the transformative power of tennis.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Southern California Tennis Association Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Candid. 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

12 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. 12 of the 18 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LAKEWOOD TENNIS CENTER: $265,563 · OtherLAKEWOOD TENNIS CENTERYOUTH TENNIS SAN DIEGO: $218,917 · OtherYOUTH TENNIS SAN DIEGOUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED: $79,129 · OtherUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATEDNA TENNIS LLC: $75,879 · OtherNA TENNIS LLCTOP SEED TENNIS ACADEMY: $68,597 · OtherTOP SEED TENNIS ACADEMYJACK KRAMER CLUB: $60,556 · OtherJACK KRAMER CLUBSC TENNIS INC: $60,000 · OtherSC TENNIS INC+2 more: $18,750 · OtherCANDID: $134,738 · PhilanthropyCANDIDSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TENNIS ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION: $25,000 · PhilanthropySOUTHERN CALIFOR…SAN DIEGO DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $52,250 · Recreation & SportsNEIGHBORHOOD JUNIOR TENNIS PROGRAM INC: $10,500 · Recreation & SportsORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsGREATER SAN DIEGO CITY TENNIS COUNC: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsSLOANE STEPHENS FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsTGA SPORTS FOUNDATION: $7,000 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO LOS ANGELES: $5,000 · Youth Development
Other$847,391Philanthropy$159,738Recreation & Sports$77,750Youth Development$12,000

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 budgetYOUTH TENNIS SAN DIEGO: $218,917 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetCANDID: $134,738 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED: $79,129 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAN DIEGO DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $52,250 over 2y, 22% of budgetSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TENNIS ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetTGA SPORTS FOUNDATION: $7,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetTennis Patrons Assoc of Santa Barbara: $5,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $5,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetGREATER SAN DIEGO CITY TENNIS COUNC: $5,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO LOS ANGELES: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

The San Diego Foundat…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
The San Diego FoundationCA13× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The San Diego Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Southern California Tennis Association funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Southern California Tennis Association. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 18 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Southern California Tennis Association’s 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