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

· Public charity

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.

$359k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$75k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Recreation & Sports$2.9M
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $151k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $209k
$42,472
Median grant
5
States reached
$1.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC$74,932
ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC$69,456
HEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS$64,172
IOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION$42,472
NEBRASKA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC$41,600
MISSOURI DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC$37,900
KANSAS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSN INC$28,884
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 82% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%NEBRASKA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $42k → 12%OKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $75k → 16%OKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $62k → 16%IOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $42k → 15%HEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS: $56k → 5%KANSAS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSN INC: $37k → 16%ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $69k → 11%NEBRASKA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $40k → 12%OKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $73k → 16%OKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $61k → 16%IOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $41k → 15%HEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS: $53k → 5%KANSAS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSN INC: $36k → 16%ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $67k → 11%NEBRASKA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $39k → 12%OKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $71k → 16%OKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $57k → 16%IOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $40k → 15%HEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS: $52k → 5%KANSAS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSN INC: $35k → 16%ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $65k → 11%NEBRASKA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $38k → 12%OKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $68k → 16%IOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $39k → 15%HEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS: $55k → 5%ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $63k → 11%MISSOURI DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $38k → 15%NEBRASKA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $36k → 12%OKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $64k → 16%IOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $37k → 15%HEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS: $64k → 5%ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $60k → 11%MISSOURI DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $37k → 15%OKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $56k → 16%IOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $37k → 15%HEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS: $62k → 5%ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $58k → 11%MISSOURI DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $36k → 15%NEBRASKA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $36k → 12%IOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $36k → 15%HEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS: $60k → 5%ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $58k → 11%MISSOURI DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $35k → 15%NEBRASKA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $34k → 12%HEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS: $58k → 5%ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $54k → 11%HEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS: $48k → 5%ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOC: $52k → 11%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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.9M · 8 repeat orgs$31k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
1

Total granted

$2.9M
$31k

Still filing today

88%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

  • OD
    OKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $586k · revenue +13%
  • SL
    ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $548k · revenue +94%
  • ID
    IOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $338k · revenue +50% · 54% of their budget

Funded once

  • ST
    SPRINGFIELD TENNIS ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2017 · $31k
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

7 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. 7 of the 9 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
7/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $547,638 · OtherST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATIONIOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $337,516 · OtherIOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATIONNEBRASKA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $328,521 · OtherNEBRASKA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCKANSAS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSN INC: $294,935 · OtherKANSAS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSN INCHEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $293,387 · OtherHEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATIONHEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS: $215,655 · OtherHEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS+1 more: $30,664 · OtherOKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $586,493 · Recreation & SportsOKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIAT…USTA MISSOURI: $273,349 · Recreation & SportsUSTA MISSOURI
Other$2,048,316Recreation & Sports$859,842

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 budgetOKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $586,493 over 9y, 14% of budgetST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $547,638 over 9y, 18% of budgetIOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $337,516 over 9y, 54% of budgetNEBRASKA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC: $328,521 over 9y, 59% of budgetKANSAS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSN INC: $294,935 over 9y, 47% of budgetHEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $293,387 over 5y, 26% of budgetUSTA MISSOURI: $273,349 over 8y, 42% 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 OKLAHOMA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds ST LOUIS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds IOWA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds NEBRASKA TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds KANSAS DISTRICT TENNIS ASSN INC ↗
  • Who funds HEART OF AMERICA DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds USTA MISSOURI ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization United States Tennis Association Missouri Valley Section funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United States Tennis Association Missouri Valley Section. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%4%15%34%60%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
    1get no government money at all
    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 Missouri Valley Section?

    Find your warmest path to United States Tennis Association Missouri Valley Section 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 9 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 United States Tennis Association Missouri Valley Section’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