The Cincinnati Tennis Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473682420
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
3176690473
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Racquet Sports

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,306,061
Expenses
$787,845
Assets
$2,120,406
Liabilities
$3,040

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Josh Heller (Board President)

People named in this filing

  • Mark Alexander (Director)
  • Srini Annapantula (Director)
  • Rob Baker (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cincinnati Tennis Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to using racquet sports and educational opportunities to build Life Champions. We are committed to growing racquet sports in the region and creating lifelong opportunities for play and development.

What it reported doing in 2025

School and Community Outreach: CTF visits 30+ community locations annually to introduce tennis and pickleball throughout the Greater Cincinnati area. All players have the chance to continue in our free or scholarshipped year round programs. In addition to developing lifelong, healthy lifestyles, our Cincy Scholars benefit from academic support, math and literacy curriculum, financial literacy initiatives, social emotional development, and mentoring. After school and summer programs are led by Community Leaders and Educators to equip our students to be Life Champions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.1%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 39.7%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.69; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 51.4% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 35% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 39% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.1% of revenue deployed · 87.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $687K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.