· Public charity
Southern Tennis Association Inc
Growing tennis to inspire healthier people and communities everywhere.
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.
The 31 grants below total $8,196,087 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $8,648,729 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $452,642 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k6 grants · $43k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $305k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $198k
- $250k+9 grants · $7.7M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GEORGIA TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $1,797,091 |
| NORTH CAROLINA TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $1,553,762 |
| SOUTH CAROLINA TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $1,088,971 |
| ALABAMA TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $638,099 |
| TENNESSEE TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $625,141 |
| LOUISIANA TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $621,543 |
| MISSISSIPPI TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $535,665 |
| KENTUCKY TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $424,315 |
| ARKANSAS TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $365,460 |
| USTA FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| SOUTHERN TENNIS PATRONS FOUNDATION | $97,644 |
| CITY OF OWENSBORO KY | $43,000 |
| VAN DER MEER TENNIS UNIVERSITY | $42,000 |
| MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY | $40,000 |
| APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY | $40,000 |
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 (FY17–22, $41k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 88% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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 +40% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
53 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2024, 37 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $274k 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
- NCNORTH CAROLINA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC8× · 2017–2024 · $11M · revenue +38% · 53% of their budget
- SCSOUTH CAROLINA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC8× · 2017–2024 · $7.4M · revenue +40% · 75% of their budget
- ATALABAMA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC8× · 2017–2024 · $4.3M · revenue +36% · 50% of their budget
Funded once
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITYone grant, 2023 · $55k · revenue +23%- RDRECREATION DISTRICT #14 OF ST TAMMANY PARISHone grant, 2020 · $39k
- COCOUNTY OF MITCHELLone grant, 2023 · $35k
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.
Amateur sports competition (tennis).
Growing tennis to inspire healthier people and communities everywhere.
The usta mission is growing tennis to inspire healthier people and communities everywhere.usta is the national governing body for the sport of tennis and the recognized leader in promoting and developing the sport's growth on every level…
To promote and develop the growth of tennis in the state of montana.
To promote the development of tennis as a means of healthful recreation and physical fitness and to foster amateur tennis tournaments and competition.
To promote amateur tennis competition via United States Tennis Association adult and children's league programs, to encourage healthy lifestyles, youth development and community participation trough organized leagues, tennis clinics, and…
The USTA Northern Illinois District is the local district of the USTA Midwest Section with the mission To Promote Develop and Service the Game of Tennis.
The mission of the berks county tennis association (bcta) is to grow and promote the game of tennis in berks county for players of all ages and abilities. a key part of this is their commitment to making tennis accessible and enjoyable for…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Louisiana Tennis Association Inc and the most unlike its peers is Wake Forest University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 26 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.
61 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 61 of the 131 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 GEORGIA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH CAROLINA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTH CAROLINA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds ALABAMA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds LOUISIANA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds TENNESSEE TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds MISSISSIPPI TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds KENTUCKY TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds ARKANSAS TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds ATLANTA COMMUNITY TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds USTA FOUNDATION INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN TENNIS PATRONS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Charlotte Tennis Association ↗
- Who funds CANDID ↗
- Who funds RALEIGH TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds LOWCOUNTRY TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds BIRMINGHAM AREA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds Western Wake Tennis Association ↗
- Who funds TRI COUNTY COMMUNITY TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds MOBILE AREA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds GREENSBORO TENNIS ORGANIZATION INC ↗
- Who funds WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds NEW ORLEANS METROPOLITAN AREA TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds GREATER BATON ROUGE COMMUNITY TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds Memphis Tennis Association ↗
- Who funds Lake Norman Tennis Association ↗
- Who funds BATON ROUGE WHEELCHAIR TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: United States Tennis Association Incorporated · Usta Foundation Incorporated · Louisiana Tennis Association Inc · The Golden Leaf Inc · Georgia Tennis Association Inc · Palmettopride the Governor's Council on Beautification & Litter · Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Inc · National Recreation and Park Association · Foundation for the Carolinas · North Carolina Community Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Center for Technology and Civic Life
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 Southern Tennis Association 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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.