Skip to content
United States Tennis Association Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

United States Tennis Association Inc

USTA Midwest is dedicated to promoting tennis programs and education through various goals and objectives.

$1.8M
Granted FY2024still arriving
18
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$230k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2024.

Recreation & Sports$9.1MCommunity Improvement$10kHuman Services$8kPublic Benefit$8k
02FY2024 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k4 grants · $33k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $38k
  • $50k–250k12 grants · $1.8M
$70,787
Median grant
5
States reached
$4.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Ohio Valley Tennis Association$229,587
Wisconsin Tennis Association$222,043
Chicago District Tennis Association$218,519
Southeastern Michigan Tennis Associ$215,308
Central Indiana Tennis Association$187,855
Northeastern Ohio Tennis Associatio$163,762
USTA Midwest Tennis & Education Fou$159,856
Western Michigan Tennis Association$92,388
Northern Indiana Tennis Association$70,787
Northwest Ohio Tennis Association$68,577
Northern Illinois Tennis Associatio$62,299
Mid-South Illinois Tennis Associati$59,415
Northeastern Michigan Tennis Associ$19,627
Northern Michigan Tennis Associatio$18,867
City of Germantown$8,125
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 (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 67% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Western Michigan Tennis Association: $92k → 8%Western Michigan Tennis Association: $109k → 11%Southeastern Michigan Tennis Assoc: $367k → 21%Wisconsin Tennis Association: $235k → 9%Central Indiana Tennis Association: $217k → 5%Northern Indiana Tennis Association: $133k → 15%Central Indiana Tennis Association: $191k → 16%Ohio Valley Tennis Association: $230k → 12%Northeastern Ohio Tennis Assoc: $232k → 13%Ohio Valley Tennis Association: $218k → 15%Northwest Ohio Tennis Association: $78k → 18%Northern Illinois Tennis Associatio: $77k → 6%Mid-South Illinois Tennis Associati: $71k → 14%Western Michigan Tennis Association: $88k → 8%Western Michigan Tennis Association: $97k → 11%Southeastern Michigan Tennis Associ: $233k → 21%Wisconsin Tennis Association: $229k → 9%Central Indiana Tennis Association: $176k → 5%Northern Indiana Tennis Association: $75k → 15%Central Indiana Tennis Association: $188k → 16%Ohio Valley Tennis Association: $221k → 12%Northeastern Ohio Tennis Associatio: $177k → 13%Ohio Valley Tennis Association: $215k → 15%Northwest Ohio Tennis Association: $72k → 18%Northern Illinois Tennis Associatio: $72k → 6%Chicago District Tennis Association: $225k → 14%Western Michigan Tennis Association: $86k → 11%Southeastern Michigan Tennis Associ: $218k → 21%Wisconsin Tennis Association: $222k → 9%Northern Indiana Tennis Association: $71k → 15%Central Indiana Tennis Association: $181k → 16%Northeastern Ohio Tennis Associatio: $166k → 13%Ohio Valley Tennis Association: $230k → 15%Northwest Ohio Tennis Association: $69k → 18%Chicago District Tennis Association: $220k → 14%Southeastern Michigan Tennis Associ: $215k → 21%Wisconsin Tennis Association: $221k → 9%USTA Midwest Tennis & Education Fou: $160k → 16%Northeastern Ohio Tennis Associatio: $164k → 13%Chicago District Tennis Association: $219k → 14%Southeastern Michigan Tennis Associ: $212k → 21%Wisconsin Tennis Association: $214k → 9%USTA Midwest Tennis & Education Fou: $141k → 16%Northeastern Ohio Tennis Associatio: $161k → 13%Chicago District Tennis Association: $216k → 14%USTA Midwest Tennis & Education Fou: $141k → 16%Chicago District Tennis Association: $210k → 14%USTA Midwest Tennis & Education Fou: $100k → 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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$9.1M · 14 repeat orgs$43k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +62% since the first grant, against +48% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 14 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
1

Total granted

$9.1M
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+62%
+48%

Still filing today

93%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $33k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Recreation & SportsCommunity 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

  • US
    UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +38% · 90% of their budget
  • US
    UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +6% · 53% of their budget
  • US
    UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +171% · 85% of their budget

Funded once

  • CU
    CINCINNATI USA REGIONAL CHAMBER FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +48%
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
United States Tennis Association Inc

USTA Midwest is dedicated to promoting tennis programs and education through various goals and objectives. Learn more about the benefits of tennis as well as tennis available in your area.

—
2
Usta Western Massachusetts Inc
Youth Development
3
United States Tennis Association Missouri Valley Section

Serve the united states tennis association,inc.'s (usta) individual and organizational members, as well as the general public, within the geographical area designated by usta without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.

—
4
Oklahoma District Tennis Association Inc

To promote and develop the growth of tennis in the State of Oklahoma

Recreation & Sports
5
Tri County Community Tennis Association

Promotes, develops, and introduces usta to locations in ms

Recreation & Sports
6
Tennis Officials of San Antonio Association
Recreation & Sports
7
St Louis District Tennis Association

Provide recreational tennis and pickleball for adults and youth

—
8
United States Tennis Association Incorporated

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…

—
9
Usta Northern

Our mission is to promote and develop the growth of tennis in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and northwestern Wisconsin.

Human Services
10
Southern Tennis Association Inc

Growing tennis to inspire healthier people and communities everywhere.

—
11
Usta Central Arizona Tennis Association

To promote and develop the growth of tennis.

—
12
American Tennis Association

To develop, promote, and showcase opportunities through tennis

Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United States Tennis Association Inc; the most unlike its peers is St Anthony Community Center Inc. 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

15 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 15 of the 19 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.

12
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
15/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $1,245,697 · OtherUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $1,121,489 · OtherUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $1,113,643 · OtherUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $1,090,384 · OtherUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $952,256 · OtherUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $900,316 · OtherUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $473,024 · OtherUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCNORTHERN INDIANA TENNIS ASSOC INC: $398,197 · OtherNORTHWESTERN OHIO TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $348,771 · OtherUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $337,208 · OtherUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $316,195 · Other+5 more: $131,606 · OtherUSTA MIDWEST TENNIS & EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $586,839 · Recreation & SportsUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $106,882 · Recreation & SportsCINCINNATI USA REGIONAL CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Community Improvement
Other$8,428,786Recreation & Sports$693,721Community Improvement$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $1,245,697 over 5y, 90% of budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $1,121,489 over 5y, 53% of budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $1,113,643 over 5y, 85% of budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $1,090,384 over 5y, 68% of budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $952,256 over 5y, 51% of budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $900,316 over 5y, 69% of budgetUSTA MIDWEST TENNIS & EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $586,839 over 5y, 16% of budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $473,024 over 5y, 66% of budgetNORTHERN INDIANA TENNIS ASSOC INC: $398,197 over 5y, 95% of budgetNORTHWESTERN OHIO TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $348,771 over 5y, 39% of budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $337,208 over 5y, 66% of budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $316,195 over 5y, 77% of budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $106,882 over 5y, 60% of budgetCINCINNATI USA REGIONAL CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetST ANTHONY COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $8,125 over 1y, 6.2% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

United States Tennis …
United States Tennis Association IncorporatedNY17.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United States Tennis Association Incorporated

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 Tennis Association Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United States Tennis Association Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to United States Tennis Association Inc?

    Find your warmest path to United States Tennis Association 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 19 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 United States 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