Skip to content
Tri-Lakes Sportsmens Club at a glance

· Private foundation

Tri-Lakes Sportsmens Club

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$29k
Granted FY2024still arriving
22
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$4k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0184% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Recreation & Sports$65kHealth$19kEnvironment$16kYouth Development$14kAnimals$5kFood & Nutrition$5kEducation$4kHuman Services$4kOther$0
02FY2024 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,250
Median grant
1
States reached
$85k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MONTGOMERY SPORTSMENS CLUB$3,500
RICE COUNTY SOILWATER DISTRICT$2,000
Individual grant recipient$2,000
MN WOMENS WOODLAND NETWORK$2,000
BLUEBIRD RECOVERY PROGRAM$2,000
CANNON RIVER SPORTSMANS CLUB$2,000
FARIBAULT HIGH SCHOOL TRAP TEAM$1,750
NORTHFIELD RAIDERS TRAP TEAM$1,750
Individual grant recipient$1,500
DUCKS UNLIMITED$1,300
TRI CITY UNITED CLAY TARGET CLUB$1,250
NEW PRAGUE CLAY TARGET TEAM$1,250
BETHLEHEM ACADAMY TRAP TEAM$1,000
MORRISTOWN GUN CLUB$1,000
FARIBAULT SNO GO CLUB$1,000
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 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 83% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%ST PATRICK ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION: $2k → 6%MN WOMENS WOODLAND NETWORK: $2k → 11%MN WOMENS WOODLAND NETWORK: $2k → 11%MONTGOMERY SPORTSMENS CLUB: $4k → 6%MONTGOMERY SPORTSMENS CLUB: $4k → 6%MONTGOMERY SPORTSMENS CLUB: $3k → 6%MONTGOMERY SPORTSMENS CLUB: $2k → 6%MONTGOMERY SPORTSMENS CLUB: $2k → 6%VARIOUS: $15k → 11%VARIOUS: $3k → 11%LONSDALE FIRE DEPARTMENTS: $2k → 11%LONSDALE FIRE DEPARTMENTS: $2k → 11%LONSDALE FIRE DEPARTMENT: $2k → 11%LONSDALE BASEBALL ASSOCIATION: $2k → 11%CITY OF LONSDALE: $2k → 11%VARIOUS: $6k → 11%BLUEBIRD RECOVERY PROGRAM: $3k → 11%BLUEBIRD RECOVERY PROGRAM: $3k → 11%FARIBO SNO-GO CLUB: $3k → 11%BLUEBIRD RECOVERY PROGRAM: $3k → 11%BLUEBIRD RECOVERY PROGRAM: $3k → 11%RICE COUNTY SOILWATER DISTRICT: $2k → 11%BLUEBIRD RECOVERY PROGRAM: $2k → 11%BLUEBIRD RECOVERY PROGRAM: $2k → 11%BLUEBIRD RECOVERY PROGRAM: $2k → 11%BLUEBIRD RECOVERY PROGRAM: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT HIGH SCHOOL TRAP TEAM: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT HIGH SCHOOL TRAP TEAM: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT HIGH SCHOOL TRAP TEAM: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT FALCONS TRAP TEAM: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT ARCHERY CLUB: $2k → 11%RICE COUNTY SOILWATER DISTRICT: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT PARKS & RECREATION: $2k → 11%RICE COUNTY SOILWATER DISTRICT: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT ARCHERY CLUB: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT ARCHERY CLUB: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT PARKS & RECREATION: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT ARCHERY CLUB: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT HIGH SCHOOL TRAP TEAM: $2k → 11%RICE COUNTY SOILWATER DISTRICT: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT ARCHERY CLUB: $2k → 11%RICE COUNTY SOILWATER DISTRICT: $2k → 11%FARIBAULT FALCONS TRAP TEAM: $2k → 11%CANNON RIVER SPORTSMANS CLUB: $2k → 11%CANNON RIVER SPORTSMEN'S CLUB: $2k → 11%CANNON RIVER SPORTSMANS CLUB: $2k → 11%NORTHFIELD RAIDERS TRAP TEAM: $2k → 11%NORTHFIELD RAIDERS TRAP TEAM: $2k → 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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$163k · 34 repeat orgs$23k to everyone else

34 repeat relationships: 16 still active in FY2024, 18 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

34
18

Total granted

$163k
$18k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
+49%

Still filing today

12%
17%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
Recreation & SportsEducationEnvironmentOther
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

  • MS
    MONTGOMERY SPORTSMENS CLUB INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $14k · revenue +474% · 38% of their budget
  • SL
    Scott Lesueur Waterfowlers Inc
    3× · 2022–2024 · $3k · revenue +39%
  • DU
    Ducks Unlimited Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $2k · revenue +26%

Funded once

  • FS
    FARIBO SNO-GO CLUB INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue +169%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $2k
  • LB
    LONSDALE BASEBALL ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2017 · $2k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 58 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

VARIOUS: $26,620 · OtherVARIOUSBLUEBIRD RECOVERY PROGRAM: $18,600 · OtherBLUEBIRD RECOVERY PROGRAMMONTGOMERY SPORTSMENS CLUB INC: $14,000 · OtherMONTGOMERY SPORTSMENS CLUB INCNORTHFIELD RAIDERS TRAP TEAM: $11,500 · OtherNORTHFIELD RAIDERS TRAP TEAMRICE COUNTY SOILWATER DISTRICT: $8,000 · OtherFARIBAULT ARCHERY CLUB: $7,500 · OtherFARIBAULT HIGH SCHOOL TRAP TEAM: $6,500 · Other+47 more: $84,480 · Other+47 moreScott Lesueur Waterfowlers Inc: $2,900 · Recreation & SportsFARIBO SNO-GO CLUB INC: $2,500 · Recreation & SportsDucks Unlimited Inc: $2,050 · EnvironmentUniversity of St Thomas: $500 · Education
Other$177,200Recreation & Sports$5,400Environment$2,050Education$500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMONTGOMERY SPORTSMENS CLUB INC: $14,000 over 5y, 38% of budgetScott Lesueur Waterfowlers Inc: $2,900 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetFARIBO SNO-GO CLUB INC: $2,500 over 1y, 6.5% of budgetDucks Unlimited Inc: $2,050 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSt Patrick Athletic Association: $2,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetNORTHERN STAR COUNCIL: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of St Thomas: $500 over 1y, 0.0% 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 MONTGOMERY SPORTSMENS CLUB INC ↗
  • Who funds Scott Lesueur Waterfowlers Inc ↗
  • Who funds FARIBO SNO-GO CLUB INC ↗
  • Who funds Ducks Unlimited Inc ↗
  • Who funds St Patrick Athletic Association ↗
  • Who funds NORTHERN STAR COUNCIL ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Tri-Lakes Sportsmens Club funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Tri-Lakes Sportsmens Club. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Tri-Lakes Sportsmens Club?

    Find your warmest path to Tri-Lakes Sportsmens Club 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 58 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-PF 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 Tri-Lakes Sportsmens Club’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