USTA Mid-Atlantic Section Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237434416
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Reston, VA, USA
Phone
7035566120
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,628,530
Expenses
$5,017,847
Assets
$3,094,969
Liabilities
$421,533

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lynn Coddington (President)
  • Jeri Ingram (Vice President)
  • Tara Fitzpatrick-Navarro (Executive Director)
  • Jennifer Gregg (Associate Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Tara Fitzpatrick-Navarro (Executive Director): $179,339 total reported compensation
  • Jennifer Gregg (Associate Executive Director): $114,331 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote the growth and development of tennis, establish and maintain rules of play and encouraging, sanctioning and conducting tennis programs.

What it reported doing in 2015

Tennis Programs: USTA MAS Adult and Youth Programs offer quality recreational and competitive programs for people of all ages and abilities. Adult Programs include USTA League Activities, Adult Recreation & Social Tennis Opportunities, Tournaments, Adult and Senior National Events, College Tennis, Officials Activities, Volunteer Committees and Councils, and Multicultural Participation Activities. Youth Tennis Programs include Junior Tournaments, 10 and Under Youth Tennis Progression, Junior Team Tennis, High School Player Developmental Pathway, Competition Training Centers and National Junior Tennis and Learning. See Schedule O for more information on Adult and Youth Tennis Programs

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 65% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50.4%; rating input score 50; 15th 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; 65th 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: Pass
    • 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: 10.8%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.62; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73% of revenue deployed · 81.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $179K · 12 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $347K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.