· Public charity
Usta Foundation Incorporated
To bring tennis & education together to change lives, with particular emphasis on under-resourced youth.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 140 grants below total $7,924,366 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $9,087,391 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,163,025 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k12 grants · $98k
- $10k–50k82 grants · $2.0M
- $50k–250k43 grants · $4.2M
- $250k+3 grants · $1.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Lulu'S Place Inc | $1,000,000 |
| Marcy Tennis Club Inc | $316,900 |
| Junior Tennis Champions Center | $301,855 |
| Metropolitan Tennis And Education Group | $194,200 |
| Usta Player Development Inc | $184,000 |
| NYJTL | $166,850 |
| Innercity Tennis Foundation | $160,860 |
| Youth Development Association Inc | $151,300 |
| Mach Academy | $150,900 |
| Dallas Tennis Association | $147,750 |
| Harlem Junior Tennis And Education Program Inc | $129,500 |
| First Serve OKC Foundation | $122,081 |
| First Serve-New Mexico Inc | $114,100 |
| Sportsmen'S Tennis Club Enrichment Center | $113,250 |
| Todd Martin Development Fund | $111,700 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY18–24, $961k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 81% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +43% since the first grant, against +34% for the ones you funded once.
172 repeat relationships — 129 still active in FY2024, 43 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $288k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- LPLULU'S PLACE INC4× · 2019–2024 · $3.0M · revenue ×12 · 50% of their budget
- JTJUNIOR TENNIS CHAMPIONS CENTER INC7× · 2018–2024 · $969k · revenue +87%
- FSFIRST SERVE MIAMI INC6× · 2018–2023 · $903k · revenue +91% · 39% of their budget
Funded once
- NCNWA CHALLENGE FOR HOPE INCgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $40k · revenue +34% · 45% of their budget
- BABOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTH OAKLAND COUNTYgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $22k · revenue +49%
- APASBURY PARK TENNIS INITIATIVEone grant, 2023 · $22k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Tennis for Life Foundation is dedicated to fostering mental wellness, emotional resilience, and suicide prevention through the transformative power of tennis.
Present and teach tennis, primarily to inner city kids yet allowing opportunity for all kids to participate; and many do. We teach tennis, but our main focus is on the total development of our youth. We try to instill the many attributes…
helping children with disabilities learn
Youth mentoring and tennis instruction
Tennista Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering young people through sport-based development initiatives. By combining the transformative power of tennis with education and life skills programs, we promote…
Montgomery County Tennis Education Foundation MCTEF is committed to providing healthy recreational and educational opportunities to underserved Montgomery County youth using tennis as the vehicle to teach sportmanship, self-discipline, and…
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…
To create opportunities to play tennis in under-resourced communities, and to promote health and well-being through tennis.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Atlanta Community Tennis Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Betty Kanuha Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 14 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 6% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
194 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 194 of the 238 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds LULU'S PLACE INC ↗
- Who funds USTA PLAYER DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Metropolitan Tennis & Education Group ↗
- Who funds JUNIOR TENNIS CHAMPIONS CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds FIRST SERVE MIAMI INC ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK JUNIOR TENNIS LEAGUE INC ↗
- Who funds DALLAS TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds INNERCITY TENNIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Legacy Youth Tennis And Education Inc ↗
- Who funds HARLEM JUNIOR TENNIS AND EDUCATION PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds KINGS COUNTY TENNIS LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds MaliVai Washington Kids Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds THE SPORTSMEN'S TENNIS & ENRICHMENT CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds South Atlanta Community Tennis ↗
- Who funds MACH ACADEMY INC ↗
- Who funds NJTL OF BENNINGTON VT INC ↗
- Who funds SEATTLE TENNIS & EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds THE ACE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds SLOANE STEPHENS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds YOUTH TENNIS SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds PORTLAND TENNIS & EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds MARTY HENNESSY INSPIRING CHILDREN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TENACITY INC ↗
- Who funds GTP FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HOUSTON TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds GREATER POTTSTOWN TENNIS & LEARNING ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds EAST PALO ALTO TENNIS & TUTORING ↗
- Who funds AS & ACES ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL JUNIOR TENNIS & LEARNING OF TRENTON INC ↗
- Who funds FIRST SERVE-NM INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL TENNIS HALL OF FAME INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds BORDER YOUTH TENNIS EXCHANGE INC ↗
- Who funds ADVANTAGE CLEVELAND TENNIS AND EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds RODNEY STREET TENNIS AND TUTORING ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds YOUTH TENNIS ADVANTAGE ↗
- Who funds Gainesville Area Community Tennis Association ↗
- Who funds ATLANTA COMMUNITY TENNIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TODD MARTIN DEVELOPMENT FUND ↗
- Who funds Youth Development Association ↗
- Who funds ADVANTAGE KIDS ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: United States Tennis Association Incorporated · Womens Sports Foundation · Southern Tennis Association Inc · Usta Midwest Tennis & Education Foundation Inc · Laureus Sport for Good Foundation USA · Dick's Sporting Goods Foundation · USTA Florida Section Foundation Inc · Southern California Tennis Association Foundation · Usta New England Inc · United States Tennis Association- Middle States Section · Bryan Brothers Foundation Inc · Usta Eastern Inc
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Usta Foundation Incorporated funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Urban League of Greater Springfield Inc — 81% of income from government
- Asbury Park Tennis Initiative — 38% of income from government
- Nehemiah Gateway Community Development Corporation — 26% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.