Skip to content
Squash and Education Alliance Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Squash and Education Alliance Inc

We strive to achieve our mission in three main ways: - growth: launch squash and education programs in new cities - program quality: ensure the highest quality programming among our members by identifying and sharing best practices, tracking data, evaluating programs, developing leaders, and creating opportunities to exchange ideas and…

$677k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
10
States reached
$50k
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, FY2020 to 2025.

Youth Development$918kEducation$514kRecreation & Sports$447kHuman Services$50kPublic Benefit$16k
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 13 grants below total $416,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $676,976 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $260,976 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k10 grants · $266k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $150k
$25,000
Median grant
10
States reached
$24M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
METROsquash$50,000
Squash Haven$50,000
Racquet Up Detroit$50,000
SquashSmarts$37,500
Steel City Squash$37,500
Kids on Point$35,000
StreetSquash$25,000
Urban Squash Cleveland$25,000
Cincinnati Squash Academy$25,000
First State Squash$25,000
Mission Success$25,000
716 Squash$16,000
Santa Barbara School of Squash$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:

Its human-services grants (FY22–25, $151k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 47% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 13%Squash Haven: $50k → 12%Cincinnati Squash Academy: $35k → 16%Squash Haven: $30k → 12%Cincinnati Squash Academy: $25k → 16%Cincinnati Squash Academy: $11k → 16%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.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
IL
MI
NY
MA
OH
PA
CT
CA
MD
DE
SC
TX
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 11% of Squash and Education Alliance Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Squash and Education Alliance Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.9M · 15 repeat orgs$88k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue -21% since the first grant, against -47% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
3

Total granted

$1.9M
$48k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-21%
-47%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $40k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’22’23’24’25
Recreation & SportsYouth DevelopmentEducationHuman ServicesPublic BenefitOther
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

  • SI
    SQUASHSMARTS INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $122k · revenue +13%
  • SH
    SQUASH HAVEN INC
    2× · 2023–2025 · $80k · revenue +100%
  • EC
    Emanuel Community Center DBA Cincinnati Squash Academy
    3× · 2022–2025 · $71k · revenue +1%

Funded once

  • S
    SQUASHDRIVE
    one grant, 2022 · $26k · revenue -59%
  • CS
    Capitol Squash Inc
    one grant, 2024 · $14k · revenue +21%
  • SQUASHBUSTERS INC
    one grant, 2022 · $8k · revenue -47%
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
Michigan Club Squash
Recreation & Sports
2
Squash and Education Alliance Inc

We strive to achieve our mission in three main ways: - growth: launch squash and education programs in new cities - program quality: ensure the highest quality programming among our members by identifying and sharing best practices,…

Recreation & Sports
3
716 Squash Inc

The mission of the Corporation is to empower Buffalo youth with limited access to resources to reach their full potential as students, athletes, and engaged citizens by providing long-term support and life-changing opportunities through…

Public Benefit
4
Squash On Track

The mission of squash on track is to aid underprivleged youth through free-of-charge lessons in the sport of squash and to provide other after-school support, including academic assistance.

Youth Development
5
Urban Squash Twin Cities

Empowering marginalized youth to break barriers and build futures through sports, study and self-development.

Recreation & Sports
6
Squashbridge Inc

Squashbridge will be a one-of-its-kind athletic, educational, and community center in bridgeport for people of all ages and backgrounds.

Education
7
Miami Valley Squash Foundation
Recreation & Sports
8
Ysk Events

Create a platform incorporating art to educate the public on the health benefits of squash, increase youth participation in the sport, run events to raise awareness of the opportunities in the sport and help kids get admitted into top…

Recreation & Sports
9
Rochester Community Squash Inc

The mission of rochester community squash is to foster the growth of squash as a life-long athletic pursuit providing not only a healthy activity for the greater rochester community, but also a safe, inclusive environment for area youth to…

Recreation & Sports
10
Atlanta Urban Squash Inc D/B/a a Squash

A+ provides underserved atlanta youth with year-round academic, athletic & community programming to help them develop the skills and knowledge needed to graduate with the tools to become successful adults.

Recreation & Sports
11
Washington Education & Squash Academy Formerly Seattle Urban Squash

Washington Education & Squash Academy's mission is to offer a group of underprivileged students year-round intense squash instruction, academic tutoring and community service so that they recognize and fulfill their potential in life as…

—
12
Squash Dreamers

Education sports and community for refugee girls in Jordan.

Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Baltimore Squashwise Inc; the most unlike its peers is Portland Community Squash. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

20 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
5/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ACCESS YOUTH ACADEMY: $350,000 · Youth DevelopmentACCESS YOUTH ACADEMYFirst State Squash Inc: $250,000 · Youth DevelopmentFirst State Squash IncBALTIMORE SQUASHWISE INC: $150,000 · Youth DevelopmentBALTIMORE SQUASHWISE INC+3 more: $48,000 · Youth Development+3 moreCity Squash Inc: $137,800 · Recreation & SportsCity Squash IncMETROSQUASH NFP: $130,000 · Recreation & SportsMETROSQUASH NFPSQUASHSMARTS INC: $122,000 · Recreation & SportsSQUASHSMARTS INCPortland Community Squash: $112,000 · Recreation & SportsPortland Community SquashRACQUET UP DETROIT: $100,000 · Recreation & SportsRACQUET UP DETROITKIDS ON POINT INC: $60,000 · Recreation & SportsKIDS ON POINT INCSTREETSQUASH INC: $55,200 · Recreation & SportsSTREETSQUASH INCURBAN SQUASH CLEVELAND: $39,010 · Recreation & Sports+1 more: $13,500 · Recreation & SportsSTEEL CITY SQUASH INC: $175,000 · EducationSTEEL CITY …SQUASHDRIVE: $26,100 · EducationSQUASHDRIVESQUASH HAVEN INC: $80,000 · Human ServicesEmanuel Community Center DBA Cincinnati Squash Academy: $70,500 · Human Services716 Squash Inc: $26,000 · Public Benefit
Youth Development$798,000Recreation & Sports$769,510Education$201,100Human Services$150,500Public Benefit$26,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetACCESS YOUTH ACADEMY: $350,000 over 3y, 13% of budgetFirst State Squash Inc: $250,000 over 3y, 6.3% of budgetSTEEL CITY SQUASH INC: $175,000 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetBALTIMORE SQUASHWISE INC: $150,000 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetCity Squash Inc: $137,800 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetMETROSQUASH NFP: $130,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetSQUASHSMARTS INC: $122,000 over 3y, 2.1% of budgetPortland Community Squash: $112,000 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetRACQUET UP DETROIT: $100,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetSQUASH HAVEN INC: $80,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetEmanuel Community Center DBA Cincinnati Squash Academy: $70,500 over 3y, 5.5% of budgetKIDS ON POINT INC: $60,000 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetSTREETSQUASH INC: $55,200 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetURBAN SQUASH CLEVELAND: $39,010 over 2y, 3.8% of budgetSQUASHDRIVE: $26,100 over 1y, 2.0% of budget716 Squash Inc: $26,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetMISSION SQUASH OF HOUSTON: $25,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetSANTA BARBARA SCHOOL OF SQUASH: $15,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetCapitol Squash Inc: $13,500 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetSQUASHBUSTERS INC: $8,000 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.

Dick's Sporting Goods…National Philanthropi…Charities Aid Foundat…Vanguard Charitable E…Baird Foundation IncJpmorgan Chase Founda…American Endowment Fo…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Morgan Stanley Global…Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…
Dick's Sporting Goods FoundationPA14.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Dick's Sporting Goods Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Charities Aid Foundation America · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Baird Foundation Inc · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc

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 Squash and Education Alliance Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Squash and Education Alliance Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Baltimore Squashwise Inc: 23% of income from government
  • First State Squash Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Squash Haven Inc: 4% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
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 20 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Squash and Education Alliance’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