Skip to content
Chautauqua Lake and Watershed Management Alliance Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Chautauqua Lake and Watershed Management Alliance Inc

The alliance was formed for the purpose of working in collaboration with lake and watershed-related organizations, municipalities, and other stakeholders in chautauqua county, ny, to promote and facilitate implementation of recommendations from the chautauqua lake watershed management plan and the chautauqua lake macrophyte management…

$905k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$497k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$5.2MArts & Culture$531kRecreation & Sports$27kPublic Benefit$20kFood & Nutrition$20k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $52k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $349k
  • $250k+1 grant · $497k
$79,953
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC$496,858
CHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP INC$188,469
CHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVANCY$81,026
TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA NY$79,953
TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA NY$26,500
TOWN OF NORTH HARMONY$25,000
CHAUTAUQUA INSTITUTION$5,870
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%TOWN OF NORTH HARMONY NY: $35k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP INC: $330k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP INC: $188k → 18%TOWN OF ELLERY: $30k → 18%TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA NY: $135k → 18%TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA NY: $90k → 18%TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA NY: $82k → 18%TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA NY: $80k → 18%TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA NY: $57k → 18%TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA NY: $27k → 18%COUNTY OF CHAUTAUQUA NY: $20k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA INSTITUTION: $500k → 18%VILLAGE OF MAYVILLE NY: $13k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP INC: $349k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP INC: $182k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP INC: $127k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP: $67k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVACY: $64k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: $40k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: $26k → 18%CITY OF JAMESTOWN NY BPU: $24k → 18%ROGER TORY PETERSON INSTITUTE: $16k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP: $15k → 18%TOWN OF ELLICOTT: $51k → 18%TOWN OF ELLICOTT: $30k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $519k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $497k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $489k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $383k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $347k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $162k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: $95k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $90k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: $81k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: $76k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $70k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: $70k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $50k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $43k → 18%TOWN OF BUSTI: $30k → 18%TOWN OF BUSTI: $23k → 18%CHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: $20k → 18%VILLAGE OF LAKEWOOD NY: $20k → 18%VILLAGE OF LAKEWOOD NY: $20k → 18%VILLAGE OF LAKEWOOD NY: $17k → 18%VILLAGE OF LAKEWOOD NY: $16k → 18%TOWN OF NORTH HARMONY: $37k → 18%TOWN OF NORTH HARMONY: $25k → 18%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 8% of Chautauqua Lake and Watershed Management Alliance Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in NY; by stated purpose, 92%.

Chautauqua Lake and Watershed Management Alliance Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.7M · 11 repeat orgs$102k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
5

Total granted

$5.7M
$102k

Still filing today

45%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentArts & CultureOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • CL
    CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $2.7M · revenue +30% · 51% of their budget
  • CL
    CHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +99% · 89% of their budget
  • CI
    CHAUTAUQUA INSTITUTION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $506k · revenue +28%

Funded once

  • TO
    TOWN OF NORTH HARMONY NY
    one grant, 2019 · $35k
  • CO
    CITY OF JAMESTOWN
    one grant, 2017 · $24k
  • CO
    COUNTY OF CHAUTAUQUA NY
    one grant, 2021 · $20k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field
05the grantee network

5 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 5 of the 16 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
5/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $2,659,786 · EnvironmentCHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INCCHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP INC: $1,257,907 · EnvironmentCHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP INCCHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVANCY INC: $471,476 · EnvironmentCHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVANCY INCTOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA NY: $470,079 · OtherTOWN OF CHAUTAUQU…Individual grant recipient: $81,000 · OtherIndividual grant …VILLAGE OF LAKEWOOD NY: $72,670 · OtherVILLAGE OF LAKEWO…TOWN OF NORTH HARMONY: $68,878 · OtherTOWN OF NORTH HAR…Individual grant recipient: $52,906 · OtherIndividual grant …Individual grant recipient: $40,000 · OtherTOWN OF NORTH HARMONY NY: $35,000 · Other+5 more: $88,650 · Other+5 moreCHAUTAUQUA INSTITUTION: $505,870 · Arts & CultureCHAUTAUQU…
Environment$4,389,169Other$909,183Arts & Culture$505,870

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $2,659,786 over 8y, 51% of budgetCHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP INC: $1,257,907 over 7y, 89% of budgetCHAUTAUQUA INSTITUTION: $505,870 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetCHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVANCY INC: $471,476 over 7y, 14% of budgetROGER TORY PETERSON INSTITUTE OF NA: $22,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds CHAUTAUQUA LAKE ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds CHAUTAUQUA LAKE PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
  • Who funds CHAUTAUQUA INSTITUTION ↗
  • Who funds CHAUTAUQUA WATERSHED CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds ROGER TORY PETERSON INSTITUTE OF NA ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Reginald a & Elizabet…Ralph C Sheldon Found…Chautauqua Region Com…Donor Advised Charita…
Reginald a & Elizabeth S Lenna Fdn Inc Dba Lenna FoundationNY13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Reginald a & Elizabeth S Lenna Fdn Inc Dba Lenna Foundation · Ralph C Sheldon Foundation Inc · Chautauqua Region Community Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Chautauqua Lake and Watershed Management Alliance Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chautauqua Lake and Watershed Management Alliance Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 16 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Chautauqua Lake and Watershed Management Alliance’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home