Usta Foundation Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133782331
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Purchase, NY, USA
Phone
9146967000
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,679,644
Expenses
$14,615,015
Assets
$26,744,453
Liabilities
$6,262,669

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GINNY EHRLICH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KATHLEEN WU (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • BENJAMIN DOLLER (DIRECTOR/VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • MOLLY JOHN (DIRECTOR/VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT OBERRENDER (DIRECTOR/VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GINNY EHRLICH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $503,679 total reported compensation
  • Megan Mouton-Levy (DIRECTOR): $32,650 total reported compensation
  • William McGugin (DIRECTOR): $20,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To bring tennis & education together to change lives, with particular emphasis on under-resourced youth. Using this powerful combination, we help serve up dreams.

What it reported doing in 2025

The usta foundation provides programmatic and operational grant funding to sports-based youth development organizations that utilize tennis, education and mentorship to positively impact the lives of young people. Preference is given to national junior tennis and learning (njtl) chapters that serve under-resourced communities. In 2025, a total of $10,400,764 was granted to 173 organizations. The usta foundation is committed to supporting the organizational growth and sustainability of njtl chapters and the young people they serve in several ways. Highlights of the foundation's support include: - organizational support: the usta foundation provides direct programmatic grants and capacity-building support to qualified njtl organizations. Program grants fund direct service programming in the communities njtls serve, while capacity-building support is provided through grants, technical assistance, and other resources aimed at fostering organizational growth, leadership development, and sustainability. These supports help njtl chapters promote and implement youth development best practices and enhance overall organizational effectiveness. Additionally, the usta foundation offers infrastructure support in the form of tennis court resurfacing grants and related technical assistance to improve and maintain safe, high-quality facilities for youth programs. - young person support: the usta foundation supports njtl chapters in offering young people opportunities to become the best versions of themselves. In addition to providing evidence-based curricula that promote educational growth, the foundation delivers a range of activities that foster excellence both on and off the tennis court. Through its national excellence program, the usta foundation partners with njtl organizations to identify and support young athletes, providing on-court activities that promote athletic development, personal growth, and competitive success. The foundation broadens young people's horizons by promoting exposure to a broad range of career opportunities and strengthening post-secondary readiness. Through its internship program, the foundation prepares young people for success in college, vocational training, and other career pathways by providing essential resume development and interview preparation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -6.8%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.83; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 82.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $12M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $504K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $414K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 149 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 152 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.