Johnny Mac Tennis Project
Legal name: Johnny Mac Tennis Project Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 371625465
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New York, NY, USA
- Phone
- 212-203-1305
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Youth Development N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,423,420
- Expenses
- $1,964,512
- Assets
- $3,643,716
- Liabilities
- $290,624
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PATRICK MCENROE (BOARD PRESIDENT)
- RYANN CUTILLO (BOARD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- RYANN CUTILLO (BOARD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $244,976 total reported compensation
- LISA JOURAVLEVA (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS): $110,575 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To remove economic and social barriers to success through tennis.
What it reported doing in 2024
To introduce young athletes in the united states, and particularly in the greater New York metropolitan area to the sport of tennis, as a life-long health, fitness, and well being activity, and for some athletes, to facilitate the opportunity for high level, competitive tennis, by raising public and private funds in order to provide (i) scholarships to attend a tennis academy/training facility, (ii) private and group lessons, and (iii) funding to offset the costs and expenses associated with travel to regional, national, and international tournaments.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 78
- Sustainability: 70
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 66.8%; rating input score 67
- Program expense ratio: 79.9%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $15.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 70%; rating input score 70; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 18.9%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.85; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 24.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 7 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 66.8% of revenue deployed · 79.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $245K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1.6M reported
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.