Loading…
Loading…
Missouri · Nonprofit
Top Performance Tennis Academy (Missouri) is funded by 3 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $111,025 in grants to it, the largest being USTA Foundation Incorporated ($76,000). 1 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
Top Performance Tennis Academy has grown faster than half of the 462 recreation & sports nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 462 recreation & sports nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2025
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
9% of Top Performance Tennis Academy’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (13% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 3 reported years ran a deficit.
$25k from 1 funders in 2025, up from $34k and 1 in 2023.
2 of 3 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 32% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.
From the IRS filings of Top Performance Tennis Academy’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
Top Performance Tennis Academy leans on a few funders — its largest provides 68% of grant income and the top three 100%; half comes from just 1 funder.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 1 funder to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2023 100% · 2024 81% · 2025 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
Top Performance Tennis Academy draws 91% of its grant income from funders outside Missouri — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 3 states in all.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Nonprofits whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over the universe of US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
87% of spending goes to programs.
Operates in 1 state
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2025 (financials across 2023–2025), and the filings of 3funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. view filing