· Public charity
USTA Northern
Our mission is to promote and develop the growth of tennis in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and northwestern Wisconsin.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 10 grants below total $164,625 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $246,095 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $81,470 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $149k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Prior Lakes Athletics for Youth | $30,000 |
| Community Indoor Tennis Center dba Huether Family Match Pointe | $25,000 |
| Fred Wells Tennis & Education Center Inc | $23,300 |
| St Paul Urban Tennis | $17,810 |
| University of Northwestern - St Paul | $15,000 |
| City of Vermillion Parks and Recreation | $15,000 |
| InnerCity Tennis | $13,150 |
| Picklebarn LLC | $10,000 |
| South St Paul Parks & Recreation | $9,500 |
| John and Fay Menard YMCA Tennis Center | $5,865 |
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 (FY20–25, $32k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 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.
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 +70% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $70k 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
- SPST PAUL URBAN TENNIS PROGRAM7× · 2018–2025 · $165k · revenue +108%
- FWFRED WELLS TENNIS AND EDUCATION CENTER INC7× · 2019–2025 · $106k · revenue +72%
- ITINNERCITY TENNIS FOUNDATION6× · 2019–2025 · $81k · revenue +28%
Funded once
- VCVALLEY CITY PARK DISTRICTone grant, 2022 · $25k
- KCKY Community Athletic Consulting LLCone grant, 2022 · $15k
- DADELANO ATHLETIC BOOSTER CLUB INCone grant, 2024 · $15k · revenue 0%
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.
Our mission is to promote and develop the growth of tennis in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and northwestern Wisconsin.
See schedule o.the minnesota intercollegiate athletic conference strives to guide, govern, and support fair and equitable athletic competition, promote student-athlete well-being among its members, and celebrate combined excellence and…
Enriched by the lasallian catholic heritage, saint mary's university of minnesota awakens, nurtures, and empowers learners to ethical lives of service and leadership.
The midwest conference is an interstate league among similarly minded institutions - those which give primary attention to the educational purposes of athletics. member institutions believe that participation in sport enhances the…
To provide opportunity to young people and develop leaders for industry, philanthropy, education and the community through the intercollegiate athletic experience.
The Minnesota State High School League provides educational opportunities for students through interscholastic athletic and fine arts programs and provides leadership and support for member schools. The organization conducts the state…
Nebraska wesleyan university is an academic community dedicated to intellectual and personal growth within the context of a liberal arts education and in an environment of christian concern.
Provide recreational tennis and pickleball for adults and youth
Empowering marginalized youth to break barriers and build futures through sports, study and self-development.
The Mission of the Wisconsin Tennis Association is to promote develop and service the game of tennis in the USTA Wisconsin District. Our charter is to focus on the establishment of competitive developmental educational and recreational…
Our mission is to promote and develop the growth of tennis in the southwest
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Innercity Tennis Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Minneapolis Community Clay Courts. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
18 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. 18 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 ST PAUL URBAN TENNIS PROGRAM ↗
- Who funds FRED WELLS TENNIS AND EDUCATION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds INNERCITY TENNIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Youthprise ↗
- Who funds Community Indoor Tennis Center dba Huether Family Match Pointe ↗
- Who funds THE YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE CHIPPEWA VALLEY ↗
- Who funds PRIOR LAKE ATHLETICS FOR YOUTH ↗
- Who funds Stonewall Kickball Minneapolis ↗
- Who funds DELANO ATHLETIC BOOSTER CLUB INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NORTHWESTERN - ST PAUL ↗
- Who funds MINNEAPOLIS COMMUNITY CLAY COURTS ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE HAMLINE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ↗
- Who funds AUGUSTANA UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds SIOUX FALLS TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds CONCORDIA COLLEGE CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds Milbank Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds DULUTH FRIENDS OF TENNIS 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: United States Tennis Association Incorporated · The Minneapolis Foundation · Sanford Group Return · The Richard M Schulze Family Foundation · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · Otto Bremer Trust · Youthprise · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 Northern 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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.