Princeton Tennis Program

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
226104478
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Princeton, NJ, USA
Phone
609-520-0015
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Racquet Sports

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,582,165
Expenses
$1,503,079
Assets
$2,817,759
Liabilities
$564,181

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Gwen Guidice (Executive Dir.): $47,520 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 provide tennis instruction and promote the sport of tennis in the Princeton community.

What it reported doing in 2024

PTP provides top quality and affordable tennis for all ages and levels. PTPs mission is to bring the great game of tennis to all while pursuing a standard of excellence in teaching that encourages the development of health, character, good sportsmanship and responsible citizenship. This is done in many ways, including but not limited to scholarships and financial aid awarded to children that could otherwise not afford to play tennis, and we strive to expand these offerings. In addition to the youth offerings, PTP Discount Senior Programs have subsidized lessons and programs for area seniors. These specialized programs are designed to promote health, fun, meeting new people and well-being. PTP strives to bring tennis to all.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.3%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 87.1%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.87; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 81.3% of revenue deployed · 87.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $48K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.