· Public charity
Usta Texas Section
Growing tennis inclusively to promote and inspire healthier people while serving texas communities.
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 $389,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $783,107 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $394,107 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 $10k9 grants · $63k
- $10k–50k9 grants · $202k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $123k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SAN ANTONIO TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $123,350 |
| CAPITAL AREA TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $49,450 |
| DALLAS TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $44,225 |
| HOUSTON TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $35,975 |
| TEXAS TENNIS MUESEUM & HALL OF FAME | $15,000 |
| TENNIS SUCCESS INC | $12,750 |
| USTA TX TENNIS FOUNDATION | $11,625 |
| NORTHEAST TEXAS COALITION TENNIS AS | $11,400 |
| WACO TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $11,350 |
| LAREDO TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $10,400 |
| SPRING BRANCH TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $9,100 |
| SOUTHEAST TEXAS TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $8,400 |
| GREATER FORT WORTH TENNIS COALITION | $7,750 |
| CONCHO VALLEY TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $7,300 |
| LAKE TRAVIS TENNIS ASSOCIATION | $7,200 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 67% of your 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 +43% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.
22 repeat relationships — 17 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 2 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, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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
- CACAPITAL AREA TENNIS ASSOCIATION8× · 2017–2024 · $200k · revenue +72%
- DTDALLAS TENNIS ASSOCIATION8× · 2017–2024 · $179k · revenue +38%
- TTTexas Tennis Museum and Hall of Fame8× · 2017–2024 · $99k · revenue +41% · 40% of their budget
Funded once
- FWFORT WORTH TENNIS PATRONS ASSOCIATION INCone grant, 2018 · $14k · revenue -11%
- TUTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS RIO GRANDE VALLEY FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $12k · revenue +99%
- SMSt Mary's Universityone grant, 2022 · $12k · revenue +18%
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.
Growing tennis inclusively to promote and inspire healthier people while serving texas communities.
To develop, promote, and showcase opportunities through tennis
Promotes, develops, and introduces usta to locations in ms
To promote and develop the growth of tennis in the State of Oklahoma
To promote and develop the lifetime sport of tennis in the Greater San Antonio area as a means of healthful recreation, physical fitness, social connection, sportsmanship and character building by providing accessible tennis…
To provide usta jr league tournaments
Tennis for Life Foundation is dedicated to fostering mental wellness, emotional resilience, and suicide prevention through the transformative power of tennis.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Waco Tennis Association and the most unlike its peers is St Mary's University. 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 36 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 27% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 16% 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.
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 37 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 CAPITAL AREA TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds DALLAS TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds HOUSTON TENNIS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds Texas Tennis Museum and Hall of Fame ↗
- Who funds USTA TEXAS TENNIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CORPUS CHRISTI TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds TENNIS SUCCESS INC ↗
- Who funds SPRING BRANCH TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Laredo Tennis Association ↗
- Who funds WACO TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds GREATER FORT WORTH TENNIS COALITION ↗
- Who funds Southeast Texas Tennis Association ↗
- Who funds ABILENE TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds DALLAS WHEELCHAIR TENNIS CLUB ↗
- Who funds FORT WORTH TENNIS PATRONS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS RIO GRANDE VALLEY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds St Mary's University ↗
- Who funds LUBBOCK CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds NORTHEAST TEXAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ALEX O'BRIEN TENNIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TENNIS CLUB OF SAN ANTONIO ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL TEXAS TENNIS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds BUSH TENNIS CENTER ↗
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 · Usta Foundation Incorporated · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Texas Section 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.