Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersAlso receives grants — funding profile →
Plinth

· Public charity

Usta Player Development Incorporated

The mission of usta player development is to educate and train young people in the sport of tennis through a clearly defined structure and competitive pathway, as well as through the implementation of a comprehensive coaching philosophy.

$900k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.

Recreation & Sports$398kYouth Development$165kEducation$147kHealth$93k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 7 grants below total $79,910 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $900,140 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $820,230 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 $10k2 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $65k
$10,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$409k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY$24,910
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON SYSTEM$10,000
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM$10,000
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY$10,000
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA FOUNDATION$10,000
AUBURN UNIVERSITY$7,500
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN$7,500
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–17, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%UstaNorthern Section: $8k → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

WA
MN
MI
NY
MA
IN
PA
CA
CO
VA
MD
AZ
KS
NC
SC
AL
GA
TX
FL

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

54%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$419k · 11 repeat orgs$364k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
20

Total granted

$419k
$329k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+69%

Still filing today

82%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’21’22’23’24
Recreation & SportsEducationHuman ServicesOther

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

  • JT
    JUNIOR TENNIS CHAMPIONS CENTER INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $142k · revenue +191%
  • TG
    The George Washington University
    3× · 2022–2024 · $114k · revenue +18%
  • US
    UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $24k · revenue +18%

Funded once

  • SL
    SK57 LLC
    one grant, 2021 · $110k
  • NH
    Northwest High Performance
    one grant, 2017 · $20k
  • IA
    Img Academy Llc
    one grant, 2017 · $20k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
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…

—
2
Tennis Officials of San Antonio Association
Recreation & Sports
3
Tennessee Tennis Association

Grow and develop tennis in tennessee.

—
4
United States Tennis Association Inc

We offer many diverse programs for all ages to work toward our mission to promote develop grow and service the game of tennis.

—
5
Intercollegiate Tennis Association Inc

Administrative, supervision, and sponsorship of college tennis tournaments, college rankings, coaches education, and convention as college tennis rules and regulations.

Recreation & Sports
6
United States Tennis Association Inc

Guided by the belief that lives can be transformed through the game of tennis USTA Chicago a District of the USTA Midwest Section creates sustains and grows enthusiasm for the game of tennis throughout Chicagoland. As the governing body…

—
7
United States Tennis Association Inc

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…

—
8
Racquet Sports Professionals Association inc

The rspa is the trade association of all major recquet sports teaching professionals. the programs provided by the rspa strive to raise the standards of racquet sports teaching as a profession. this is accomplished through the following…

—
9
United States Tennis Association Inc

The USTA Midwest - Southeastern Michigan District has one mission: To Grow and Promote Tennis in Southeastern Michigan. Serving nine counties Hillsdale Lenawee Livingston Macomb Monroe Oakland St. Clair Washtenaw and Wayne you will always…

—
10
United States Tennis Association Inc

To innovate promote and grow the game of tennis

—
11
United States Tennis Association Inc

Since 1940 the Central Indiana District of the USTA Midwest Section has been fostering the love of tennis. Offering many diverse programs for all ages the District achieves its goal of growing tennis in Central Indiana day in and day out.

—
12
South Carolina Tennis Association Inc

To develop, maintain, and promote the game of tennis.

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Usta Northern California and the most unlike its peers is University of Miami. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 48 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%0%<5yr14%9%5–10yr19%4%10–20yr16%17%20–35yr13%44%35–55yr16%26%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%0%<5yr14%7%5–10yr19%3%10–20yr16%33%20–35yr13%25%35–55yr16%32%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/36
the rest of the field
13%
240,396/1,819,529

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.

04the grantee network

23 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. 23 of the 36 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
23/23
Grantees still filing
23/23
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

SK57 LLC — $110,000 · OtherSK57 LLCUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC — $23,500 · OtherUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCUSTA EASTERN INC — $22,500 · OtherUSTA EASTERN INCNorthwest High Performance — $20,000 · OtherImg Academy Llc — $20,000 · OtherUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION MISSOURI VALLEY SECTION — $17,500 · OtherUSTA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA — $16,000 · OtherUSTA TEXAS SECTION — $16,000 · OtherMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY — $15,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON — $15,500 · OtherTEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY — $15,000 · OtherUnited States Tennis Association- Middle States Section — $14,500 · Other+12 more — $106,703 · Other+12 moreJUNIOR TENNIS CHAMPIONS CENTER INC — $142,100 · Recreation & SportsJUNIOR TENNIS CHAMPIONS CENTER …USTAMid-Atlantic Foundation — $20,500 · Recreation & SportsUSTAMid-Atlantic FoundationSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TENNIS ASSOCIATION — $18,000 · Recreation & SportsSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TENNIS ASSO…TENNIS OUTREACH PROGRAMS OF PUGET SOUND — $15,000 · Recreation & SportsTENNIS OUTREACH PROGRAMS OF PUG…ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE — $15,000 · Recreation & SportsATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCEMOUNTAIN WEST CONFERENCE — $10,000 · Recreation & SportsThe George Washington University — $113,811 · EducationThe George Washingto…University of Arizona Foundation — $10,000 · EducationUniversity of Arizon…THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE INC — $10,000 · EducationTHE BIG 12 CONFERENC…University of Miami — $8,500 · EducationUniversity of MiamiMAYO CLINIC — $20,000 · HealthUSTA Northern — $8,000 · Human Services
Other$412,703Recreation & Sports$220,600Education$142,311Health$20,000Human Services$8,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetJUNIOR TENNIS CHAMPIONS CENTER INC — $142,100 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetThe George Washington University — $113,811 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetUSTA EASTERN INC — $22,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetUSTAMid-Atlantic Foundation — $20,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetMAYO CLINIC — $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TENNIS ASSOCIATION — $18,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION MISSOURI VALLEY SECTION — $17,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetUSTA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA — $16,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetUSTA TEXAS SECTION — $16,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTENNIS OUTREACH PROGRAMS OF PUGET SOUND — $15,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE — $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUnited States Tennis Association- Middle States Section — $14,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetSOUTHERN TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC — $13,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUnited States Tennis Association Florida Section Inc — $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetUniversity of Arizona Foundation — $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMOUNTAIN WEST CONFERENCE — $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BIG 12 CONFERENCE INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION SOUTHWEST SECTION INC — $9,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetINTERMOUNTAIN TENNIS ASSOCIATION — $9,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetUniversity of Miami — $8,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUSTA NEW ENGLAND INC — $8,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetUSTA Northern — $8,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budget
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.

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.

United States Tennis …Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
United States Tennis Association IncorporatedNY36.1× affinity15 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United States Tennis Association Incorporated · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Player Development 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 5%
  • University of Miami — 5% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 36 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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 camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines