United States Tennis Association- Middle States Section

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231688212
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Valley Forge, PA, USA
Phone
6109355000
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,405,054
Expenses
$4,647,272
Assets
$6,284,042
Liabilities
$720,637

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BENJAMIN ZISLIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO)
  • RYAN KNARR (PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTIE BOWER (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BENJAMIN ZISLIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO): $246,335 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL GLADYSZ (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $131,646 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL YOCUM (SENIOR DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $130,699 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The org. Is a section of the united states tennis assoc. And is dedicated to carrying out the goals of the national assoc. Within its region, particularly with respect to promoting tennis opportunities for juniors and adults of all abilities and cultural backgrounds.

What it reported doing in 2025

The promotion and development of the growth of tennis by establishing competitions, leagues and other events and activities throughout the section.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 85% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.1%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 66.1%; rating input score 66; 23rd 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.35; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.7%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.1% of revenue deployed · 87% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $246K · 22 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 27 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 23 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.