Skip to content

· Public charity

Lakeshore Connections Inc

At lakeshore connections, we help foundations maximize their investment in the well-being of the community through experienced grants management.

$160k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$119k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Education$255kYouth Development$20kHuman Services$9k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $119,470, the rows itemized in this filing. The $159,522 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $40,052 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$119,470
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SAY YES BUFFALO SCHOLARSHIP INC$119,470
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:

Its human-services grants (FY23–23, $9k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF GREATER BUFFALO INC: $9k → 13%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.
03Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Community Action Network

Community action network partners with children, youth and families from under-resourced washtenaw county michigan neighborhoods to create better futures for themselves, and improve the communities in which they live.

Human Services
2
The Youth Connection Inc

The Youth Connection is committed to connecting all youth and their families in metro Detroit to a brighter future by providing quality programs and supportive services.

Youth Development
3
Reaching Our Community Kids

The mission of the ROCK Center for Youth Development is to "Build hope and resilience in youth based on a foundation of acceptance, support, and respect that results in positive life choices."

Youth Development
4
Boys & Girls Clubs of Buffalo Inc

Our mission is to provide a safe and stable experience that assures success is within reach of all our members - that they graduate from high school with plans for their futures and that they are living healthy lifestyles.

Youth Development
5
The Boys and Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Baltimore

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens

Youth Development
6
Cincinnati Youth Collaborative

Cincinnati Youth Collaborative ("CYC") empowers young people to overcome barriers and excel in education, career, and life.

Education
7
Community for Youth

Community for youth employs youth mentoring, community building, leadership development, and career exploration to help youth develop relationships that will support their lives, connect with their internal power, and help them make a…

—
8
Manhattan Youth Recreation and Resources Inc

Manhattan youth's mission is to provide the highest quality academic, recreation and cultural activities to individuals and families who live and work in lower manhattan, regardless of their income.

Youth Development
9
Peace Neighborhood Center

To provide programs for children, families, and individuals who are affected by social and economic problems. Peace Neighborhood Center helps people discover options, enhance skills, and make choices that lead to self-sufficiency and…

Human Services
10
Community Education Commission

CEC works with diverse stakeholders across Detroit to develop critical resources and system-level solutions that address common challenges faced by Detroit families in accessing quality education.

Education
11
Youth Communication Ny Center Inc

Youth communication elevates teen voices to create real change. through the power of true stories, written by youth who have been systemically marginalized, we create more supportive and successful learning communities. youth…

Arts & Culture
12
Youth Enrichment Services Inc

Youth enrichment services, inc. was founded in 1994 for the purpose of providing at-risk teens and low-income families residing in allegheny county a comprehensive in-home peer mentoring program, juvenile alternative to detention,…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Center for Teen Empowerment Inc; the most unlike its peers is Fillmore Powerhouse Youth Center Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

76 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.

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

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
29
Early backer (in before they grew)
73/76
Grantees still filing
55/76
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SAY YES BUFFALO SCHOLARSHIP INC: $238,940 · EducationSAY YES BUFFALO SCHOLARSHIP INCBUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $20,000 · OtherBUFFALO PUBLIC…CAROUSEL NURSERY SCHOOL: $16,000 · OtherCAROUSEL NURSE…JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF GREATER BUFFALO INC: $9,000 · Human Services
Education$238,940Other$36,000Human Services$9,000

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSAY YES BUFFALO SCHOLARSHIP INC: $238,940 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetJEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF GREATER BUFFALO INC: $9,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

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.

Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo IncNY56.2× affinity29 shared granteesties to 9 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo Inc · The Skillman Foundation · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · United Way for Southeastern Michigan · The Ralph C Wilson Jr Foundation · DTE Energy Foundation · The John R Oishei Foundation · The Western New York Foundation · Cullen Foundation · United Way of Buffalo and Erie County · The Kresge Foundation · The Peter and Elizabeth C Tower Foundation

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 Lakeshore Connections Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Lakeshore Connections Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    2report 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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Lakeshore Connections Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Lakeshore Connections Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 4 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 Lakeshore Connections’ filings →

    More from the funding graph