Skip to content
Prairie Lakes Health Care System Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Prairie Lakes Health Care System Inc

We make a positive difference in the health of the patients and communities we serve.

$236k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$100k
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 2025.

Health$6.3MEducation$2.2MPublic Benefit$1.0MCommunity Improvement$440kYouth Development$421kPhilanthropy$343kHousing & Shelter$75kRecreation & Sports$25kOther$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $226,200, the rows itemized in this filing. The $235,896 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $9,696 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.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $70k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $150k
$30,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$462M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WATERTOWN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY$100,000
WATERTOWN CARES$50,000
WATERTOWN AREA UNITED WAY$30,000
HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY$30,000
NE TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL$10,000
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WATERTOWN$6,200
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 (FY17–25, $4.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 99% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%CASTLEWOOD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $25k → 8%JOY RANCH: $4.0M → 11%HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $50k → 11%HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $30k → 11%HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $30k → 11%HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $30k → 11%HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $30k → 11%HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $30k → 11%HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $13k → 11%HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $10k → 11%HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $10k → 11%GLACIAL LAKES MULTICULTURAL CENTER: $5k → 11%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

43%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.6M · 9 repeat orgs$6.1M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +40% since the first grant, against -29% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
8

Total granted

$4.6M
$6.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
-29%

Still filing today

67%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesEducationArts & CultureYouth DevelopmentPhilanthropyHealthOther
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

  • LA
    LAKE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $2.0M · revenue +40%
  • WD
    WATERTOWN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
    8× · 2017–2025 · $405k · revenue +977%
  • HS
    HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY
    9× · 2017–2025 · $233k · revenue +67%

Funded once

  • JR
    JOY RANCH OF SOUTH DAKOTA
    one grant, 2022 · $4.0M · revenue -73% · 55% of their budget
  • HS
    HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $2.0M · revenue -84% · 93% of their budget
  • LO
    LUTHERANS OUTDOORS IN SOUTH DAKOTA INC
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue -29%
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

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
Watertown Area Chamber of Commerce

The mission of the Watertown Area Chamber of Commerce is to connect members with one another and provide resources that foster growth and sustainability.

—
2
Waterbury Development Corporation

To stimulate and support economic and housing development within the communities of the city of waterbury.

Community Improvement
3
South Dakota Association of Rural Water Systems

Rural water development in south dakota

—
4
Watertown Area Community Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Watertown Area Chamber of Commerce

Chamber of commerce

—
6
Watertown Area Cares Clinic Inc

We strive toward providing improved access to healthcare in the watertown area, with a focus on identifying populations that are in need and the available resources. we will coordinate the compassion and caring of the people of our area to…

—
7
Watertown Area Community Foundation

To provide for the betterment of watertown, wisconsin and the surrounding area and promote the enhancement of the quality of life for its people.

Philanthropy
8
Western Iowa Development Assoc

Facilitate economic opportunity, business success, community engagement, prosperity, and quality of life for rural western iowa

—
9
Washington Economic Development Group

Coordinate area economic development

Community Improvement
10
Winona Area Chamber of Commerce

To promote business development and tourism in winona minnesota and the surrounding area

—
11
Greater Watertown-North Country Chamber of Commerce Inc

Continually increase the economic strength and quality of life in the region by helping members grow and prosper by supporting existing businesses, and by assisting in attracting and developing new business.

—
12
Lake Agassiz Regional Development Corporation

To identify and provide financing opportunities and technical assistance to emerging and existing businesses, provide community and economic development planning and implementation for the long-term sustainability and growth of the region,…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Watertown Area Community Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Codington County Historical Society. 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

16 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. 16 of the 20 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/16
Grantees still filing
6/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JOY RANCH OF SOUTH DAKOTA: $4,000,000 · Human ServicesJOY RANCH OF SOUTH DAKOTAHUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $232,833 · Human ServicesHUMAN SERVICE AGENCY+2 more: $30,000 · Human ServicesHUMAN SERVICE AGENCY FOUNDATION: $2,000,000 · OtherHUMAN SERVICE AGENCY FOUNDATIONCITY OF WATERTOWN: $1,007,500 · OtherCITY OF WATERTOWNWATERTOWN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: $405,000 · OtherWATERTOWN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY+4 more: $176,400 · OtherLAKE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: $2,024,723 · EducationLAKE AREA TECHNICAL CO…LAKE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $122,505 · EducationLAKE AREA TECHNICAL CO…+1 more: $10,000 · EducationBoys and Girls Club of Watertown: $398,200 · Youth DevelopmentWATERTOWN AREA UNITED WAY INC: $303,000 · PhilanthropyWATERTOWN AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 · PhilanthropyWATERTOWN CARES INC: $75,000 · Housing & ShelterLAKE AREA KIDNEY ENDOWMENT: $11,000 · HealthCODINGTON COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $10,000 · Arts & Culture
Human Services$4,262,833Other$3,588,900Education$2,157,228Youth Development$398,200Philanthropy$353,000Housing & Shelter$75,000Health$11,000Arts & Culture$10,000

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 budgetJOY RANCH OF SOUTH DAKOTA: $4,000,000 over 1y, 55% of budgetLAKE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: $2,024,723 over 2y, 19% of budgetHUMAN SERVICE AGENCY FOUNDATION: $2,000,000 over 1y, 93% of budgetWATERTOWN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: $405,000 over 8y, 16% of budgetBoys and Girls Club of Watertown: $398,200 over 6y, 7.9% of budgetWATERTOWN AREA UNITED WAY INC: $303,000 over 9y, 7.4% of budgetHUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $232,833 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetLAKE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $122,505 over 6y, 2.0% of budgetWATERTOWN CARES INC: $75,000 over 3y, 33% of budgetWATERTOWN AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetCASTLEWOOD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetLUTHERANS OUTDOORS IN SOUTH DAKOTA INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetCODINGTON COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $10,000 over 1y, 9.8% of budgetARROW EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetGLACIAL LAKES MULTICULTURAL CENTER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 4.5% 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.

Watertown Area Commun…South Dakota Communit…First Interstate Banc…Engels Family Foundat…Watertown Area United…Valley Queen Charitab…Sioux Falls Area Comm…Amazonsmile Foundation
Watertown Area Community FoundationSD28.5× affinity11 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Watertown Area Community Foundation · South Dakota Community Foundation · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Engels Family Foundation · Watertown Area United Way Inc · Valley Queen Charitable Foundation · Sioux Falls Area Community Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Prairie Lakes Health Care System Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Prairie Lakes Health Care System 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
    6report 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 20 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Prairie Lakes Health Care System’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