Raleigh Tennis Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202930399
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Raleigh, NC, USA
Phone
6037671006
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Racquet Sports

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$511,919
Expenses
$446,580
Assets
$571,696
Liabilities
$3,553

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TERRY PERRONE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KIMBERLY ROBERTS (EXECUTIVE DI): $51,880 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Raleigh tennis association's mission is to promote and grow the game of tennis in the raleigh, North Carolina area as a means of healthy recreational activity and physical fitness; to foster a lifetime love of the game of tennis and to do so in a diverse, inclusive environment for everyone; to administer and/or operate tennis programs, activities, and events in the city of raleigh; to represent raleigh as a community tennis association (cta) and member of the usta nc; and to engage in any other lawful activity authorized by the articles of incorporation of the corporation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community outreach: rta is responsible for identifying and organizing opportunities to serve the community through tennis. Rta supports or provides programs which promote and develop the growth of tennis. As an association, the group works to coordinate and maintain programs and services and guarantees they are open and accessible to all. Rta reached out to areas in the community to empower others with information, support, funding, and resources focused on the needs of the community. In 2024, rta donated a total of 5,050 to provide and support tennis opportunities to abilities tennis association of nc, communities in schools of wake county, salvation army, boys & girls club, ebony racquet club, nc state club, and atlantic tire championship via western wake tennis association. In addition, we donated the following: - issued scholarships to 3 college students totaling 4,500. - issued 6 cy king grants totaling 3,300. - donated 5,000 to the western wake food bank. - donated 10,000 for hurricane helene relief.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 40.1%; rating input score 40
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.8%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.28; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.6%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35% of revenue deployed · 40.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $179K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $52K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.