Skip to content

· Private foundation

Tennis for Charity Inc

FUNDING TENNIS PROGRAMS AND PARTNERS THAT ADVANCE AND CHANGE THE LIVES OF YOUNG PEOPLE.

$3.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$3.0M
Largest
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 2025.

Recreation & Sports$3.7MHealth$1.4MEducation$172kYouth Development$48k
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $7k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $52k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $114k
  • $250k+1 grant · $3.0M
$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$14M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY OF MASON$3,000,000
CINCINNATI TENNIS FOUNDATION$63,542
CINCINNATI RECREATION FOUNDATION$50,000
INNER-CITY TENNIS PROJECT$25,000
ACTIVITIES BEYOND THE CLASSROOM$15,500
INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES$11,000
BUDDY UP FOR LIFE INC$3,894
BETHEL AREA TENNIS ASSOCIATION$3,216
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 (FY17–25, $69k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $11k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $11k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $10k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $8k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $8k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $8k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $8k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $7k → 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.
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.

44%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.4M · 10 repeat orgs$3.0M to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 6 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

10
2

Total granted

$2.4M
$3.0M

Still filing today

80%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 5% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3.0M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthRecreation & SportsPhilanthropyEducationHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • CH
    CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
    7× · 2017–2023 · $915k · revenue +53%
  • TU
    THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION
    5× · 2017–2022 · $500k · revenue +30%
  • CR
    CINCINNATI RECREATION FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $357k · revenue +64% · 27% of their budget

Funded once

  • CO
    CITY OF MASON
    one grant, 2025 · $3.0M
  • BA
    BETHEL AREA TENNIS ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2025 · $3k
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
Cincinnati Concours D'elegance Foundation

The cincinnati concours foundation produces a three day weekend of fundraisers to benefit the juvenile arthritis programs and services of the arthritis foundation ohio river valley/great lakes region

Health
2
Advantage Cleveland Tennis and Education Inc

Advantage cleveland tennis and education inc. offers educational and recreational opportunities to children in cleveland during an eight week summer program in order to promote hope, healthy living and productive futures.

Recreation & Sports
3
Cincinnati Aquatic Club

To offer children and young adults a top quality program that develops, trains and competes as competitive swimmers year-round in a supportive and motivating enviroment that respects, challenges and nurtures them as athletes, students, and…

Recreation & Sports
4
The Jewish Foundation of Cincinnati
Philanthropy
5
Level Up Cincinnati

LUC's mission is to empower underserved students, particularly first-gen students from low-income families, to thrive in education and professional careers. The program addresses critical challenges faced by these students, such as higher…

Education
6
Cincinnati Youth Collaborative

Cincinnati Youth Collaborative ("CYC") empowers young people to overcome barriers and excel in education, career, and life.

Education
7
Hillel the Foundation of Jewish Campus Life

The purpose of Hillel is to be a center for enriching the lives of Jewish students in the Greater Cincinnati area and to strengthen Jewish identity through social and a broad range of programs and services in an atmosphere that is…

—
8
Cincinnati Usa Regional Chamber Foundation

To develop and promote economic development, talent initiatives and the unique offerings in the cincinnati region.

Community Improvement
9
Cincinnati Arts and Technology Center

Unlocking the self-worth and potential of at-risk teens through the transformative power of art, a first-class environment and a character-building culture. Equipping at-risk teens with skills, credentials and pathways to employment.…

—
10
City Club of Cincinnati

Nurture friendships and exchange ideas

—
11
University of Cincinnati Physicians Inc

Ucp organizes, manages, and delivers the clinical activities and professional medical services of the faculty of the university of cincinnati college of medicine.

—
12
The Cincinnati Woman's Club Foundation
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cincinnati Recreation Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Inner City Youth Opportunities. 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

8 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. 8 of the 12 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
8/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CITY OF MASON: $3,000,000 · OtherCITY OF MASONTHE INNER-CITY TENNIS PROJECT: $135,373 · Other+2 more: $23,216 · OtherCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER: $915,000 · HealthCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL…+1 more: $11,129 · HealthCINCINNATI RECREATION FOUNDATION: $357,185 · Recreation & SportsCINCINNATI …The Cincinnati Tennis Foundation: $172,189 · Recreation & SportsThe Cincinn…THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION: $500,000 · PhilanthropyTHE UNIVER…Activities Beyond the Classroom: $162,460 · EducationINNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $69,325 · Human ServicesBreakthrough Cincinnati Inc: $10,000 · Community Improvement
Other$3,158,589Health$926,129Recreation & Sports$529,374Philanthropy$500,000Education$162,460Human Services$69,325Community Improvement$10,000

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 budgetCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER: $915,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION: $500,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetCINCINNATI RECREATION FOUNDATION: $357,185 over 9y, 27% of budgetThe Cincinnati Tennis Foundation: $172,189 over 8y, 5.9% of budgetActivities Beyond the Classroom: $162,460 over 7y, 0.6% of budgetINNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $69,325 over 8y, 4.0% of budgetBUDDY UP FOR LIFE INC: $11,129 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetBreakthrough Cincinnati Inc: $10,000 over 2y, 1.1% 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.

  • Who funds CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CINCINNATI RECREATION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds The Cincinnati Tennis Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Activities Beyond the Classroom ↗
  • Who funds INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES ↗
  • Who funds BUDDY UP FOR LIFE INC ↗
  • Who funds Breakthrough Cincinnati Inc ↗

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 Greater Cincinnati FoundationOH15.2× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Greater Cincinnati Foundation · Andrew Jergens Foundation · Elsa M Heisel Sule Charitable Trust 2005 · Usta Foundation Incorporated · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Tennis for Charity Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Tennis for Charity Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%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
    0get 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, FY20–25
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Tennis for Charity Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Tennis for Charity Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 12 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-PF 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 Tennis for Charity’s filings →

    More from the funding graph