· Public charity
Usta New England Inc
USTA New England's mission is to grow tennis to inspire healthier people and communities throughout New England.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 19 grants below total $255,725 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $277,649 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $21,924 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 $10k5 grants · $40k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $215k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| USTA NEW ENGLAND-CONNECTICUT INC | $34,375 |
| USTA EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS INC | $32,836 |
| NORWALK GRASSROOTS | $19,000 |
| LAKE REGION TENNIS ASSN - ADVANTAGE KIDS | $14,000 |
| USTA NEW HAMPSHIRE INC | $13,396 |
| USTA WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS INC | $12,930 |
| MAINE TENNIS ASSOCIATION USTA MAINE | $12,636 |
| ALL COURT ENRICHMENT | $12,500 |
| SERVING STARS INC | $12,500 |
| USTA RHODE ISLAND INC | $11,124 |
| DANBURY GRASSROOTS ACADEMY INC | $10,000 |
| CENTRAL LINCOLN COUNTY YMCA | $10,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL TENNIS HALL OF FAME | $10,000 |
| LEADERSHIP EDUCATION & ATHLETICS IN PARTNERSHIP INC | $10,000 |
| USTA VERMONT INC | $9,928 |
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, $66k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% 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.
21 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 7 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, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $71k 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
- TSTHE SPORTSMEN'S TENNIS & ENRICHMENT CENTER INC6× · 2017–2023 · $81k · revenue +273%
- UEUSTA EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS INC2× · 2023–2024 · $66k · revenue +8% · 100% of their budget
- CLCentral Lincoln County Young Mens Christian Association Inc2× · 2023–2024 · $30k · revenue +65%
Funded once
- 6I6-Love Incorporatedone grant, 2022 · $25k
- TTEAMFAMEone grant, 2022 · $25k
- NONJTL OF BENNINGTON VT INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue +77%
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.
To promote and develop the game of tennis as a means to healthful recreation and physical fitness and to operate a year-round public recreational facility.
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…
Youth mentoring and tennis instruction
Tennis learnring
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New England Tennis and Education Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Share the Magic Foundation Inc. 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 17. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
22 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. 22 of the 41 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
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 NEW ENGLAND TENNIS AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE SPORTSMEN'S TENNIS & ENRICHMENT CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds USTA EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
- Who funds Central Lincoln County Young Mens Christian Association Inc ↗
- Who funds USTA WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
- Who funds 6-Love Incorporated ↗
- Who funds NORWALKSTAMFORD GRASSROOTS TENNIS & EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds NJTL OF BENNINGTON VT INC ↗
- Who funds ADVANTAGE KIDS ↗
- Who funds TENACITY INC ↗
- Who funds NEW HYTES INC ↗
- Who funds THE TENNIS FOUNDATION OF CONNECTICUT INC ↗
- Who funds ALL COURT ENRICHMENT INC ↗
- Who funds Serving Stars Inc ↗
- Who funds LEADERSHIP EDUCATION AND ATHLETICS IN PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds USTA FOUNDATION INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL TENNIS HALL OF FAME INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds DANBURY GRASSROOTS ACADEMY INC ↗
- Who funds HSC Community Services Inc ↗
- Who funds FIRST SERVE BRIDGEPORT INC ↗
- Who funds SHARE THE MAGIC FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds VICTIM RIGHTS LAW CENTER INC ↗
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: Usta Foundation Incorporated · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 New England Inc 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.
- Victim Rights Law Center Inc — 89% of income from government
- Leadership Education and Athletics in Partnership Inc — 17% 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.