Skip to content
United States Squash Racquets Assoc Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

United States Squash Racquets Assoc Inc

Us squash is the governing body of the game of squash racquets in the usa.

$23k
Granted FY2021
2
Grants FY2021
2
States reached
$8k
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 2021.

Youth Development$58kEducation$23kRecreation & Sports$16k
02FY2021 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $14,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $23,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $9,000 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.
$8,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$36M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY SQUASH INC$8,000
RACQUET UP DETROIT$6,000
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 (FY19–19, $9k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%SQUASH HEAVEN: $9k → 12%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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$88k · 5 repeat orgs$9k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2021, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
1

Total granted

$88k
$9k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
+208%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21
Recreation & SportsYouth DevelopmentHuman ServicesOther
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

  • SQUASHBUSTERS INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $26k · revenue +19%
  • AY
    ACCESS YOUTH ACADEMY
    2× · 2019–2020 · $20k · revenue +160%
  • CS
    City Squash Inc
    2× · 2020–2021 · $16k · revenue +42%

Funded once

  • SH
    SQUASH HAVEN INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $9k · revenue +208%
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
04the grantee network

6 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)
6/6
Grantees still filing
4/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SQUASHBUSTERS INC: $26,000 · Youth DevelopmentSQUASHBUSTERS INCACCESS YOUTH ACADEMY: $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentACCESS YOUTH ACADEMYCity Squash Inc: $16,000 · Recreation & SportsCity Squash IncMETROSQUASH NFP: $14,000 · Recreation & SportsMETROSQUASH NFPRACQUET UP DETROIT: $12,000 · Recreation & SportsRACQUET UP DETROITSQUASH HAVEN INC: $9,000 · Human ServicesSQUASH HAV…
Youth Development$46,000Recreation & Sports$42,000Human Services$9,000

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSQUASHBUSTERS INC: $26,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetACCESS YOUTH ACADEMY: $20,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetCity Squash Inc: $16,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetMETROSQUASH NFP: $14,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetRACQUET UP DETROIT: $12,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSQUASH HAVEN INC: $9,000 over 1y, 0.9% 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.

Squash and Education …National Philanthropi…Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Squash and Education Alliance IncNY16× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Squash and Education Alliance Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · 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 United States Squash Racquets Assoc Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United States Squash Racquets Assoc Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Squash Haven Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
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 6 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2021, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on United States Squash Racquets Assoc’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