Skip to content
Centro de Trabajadores Unidos En Lucha at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Centro de Trabajadores Unidos En Lucha

Ctul is a worker-led organization where workers organize, educate and empower each other to fight for a voice in their workplaces and in their communities.

$260k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$211k
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, FY2019 to 2023.

Employment$533kCivil Rights$348kEducation$89kPublic Benefit$55kCommunity Improvement$44k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $47k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $211k
$21,640
Median grant
1
States reached
$4.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TAKEACTION MINNESOTA EDUCATION FUND$211,020
NAVIGATE MN$21,640
CAMILA LEIVA$15,000
TAKEACTION MINNESOTA EDUCATION FUND$10,000
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 (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%WORKING PARTNERSHIPS INC: $13k → 11%TAKEACTION MINNESOTA EDUCATION FUND: $211k → 14%RESTAURANT OPPORTUNITIES CENTERS UNITED INC: $30k → 17%AWOOD CENTER: $129k → 11%ISAIAH: $90k → 14%AWOOD CENTER: $60k → 11%NEW JUSTICE PROJECT: $55k → 14%AWOOD CENTER: $60k → 11%TAKEACTION MINNESOTA EDUCATION FUND: $10k → 14%BUILDING DIGNITY AND RESPECT: $19k → 11%BUILDING DIGNITY AND RESPECT: $15k → 11%UNIDOS MN EDUCATION FUND: $50k → 11%NAVIGATE MN: $27k → 11%NAVIGATE MN: $22k → 11%CAMILA LEIVA: $15k → 11%NAVIGATE MN: $13k → 11%CENTRAL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION: $10k → 11%INQUILINXS UNIDXS POR JUSTICIA: $8k → 11%ROC MN: $224k → 11%ROC MN: $133k → 11%ROC MN: $94k → 11%ROC MN: $40k → 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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.2M · 5 repeat orgs$136k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
4

Total granted

$1.2M
$121k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+57%

Still filing today

100%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’25
Community ImprovementCivil RightsPublic BenefitEducationEmploymentReligionOther
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

  • TM
    TAKEACTION MN EDUCATION FUND
    2× · 2023–2025 · $276k · revenue +33%
  • UM
    UNIDOS MINNESOTA EDUCATION FUND
    4× · 2020–2025 · $111k · revenue +134%
  • BD
    BUILDING DIGNITY AND RESPECT STANDARDS COUNCIL
    2× · 2020–2022 · $34k · revenue +39%

Funded once

  • I
    ISAIAHgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $90k · revenue +57%
  • WP
    Working Partnerships Incgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $13k · revenue +124%
  • CA
    Central Area Neighborhood Development Organizationgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +35%
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
Minnesota Voice

Minnesota Voice is a collaboration of organizations working toward permanent change in social, racial, and economic justice by increasing civic engagement and voter participation across the state.

Public Benefit
2
Growth & Justice

To develop and advocate for public policy that makes Minnesota's economy more prosperous and fair for all Minnesotans.

—
3
Elevate Minnesota

To educate the public about the history, purpose and importance of Minnesota unions working in construction, truck driving, and other industrial operations to solidify public support for unions and show the public who the members of unions…

—
4
Leadership Matters Mn

Leadership matters mn is focused on advancing a policy agenda that places working minnesotans first. we support economic growth, job creation and equitable tax and education policies that will allow every minnesotan to thrive.

Education
5
Working Washington

We are workers, united across different industries to improve our working conditions and our lives. We come together as working people to build power through education, organizing, and enforcement. We work to raise and uphold standards in…

—
6
Minnesota Indigenous Business Alliance

ACT: Align Partners, Connect Businesses to Resources and Transform Native Economies.

Community Improvement
7
Laborers' Int'l Union Local 563

Local 563 represents approximately 9,800 active construction workers employed in minneapolis, mn, st paul, mn and surrounding areas. its purpose is to organize all workers for the economic, moral and social advancement of their condition…

—
8
Center for Economic Inclusion

The Center for Economic Inclusion is an organization committed to strengthening the Minneapolis - Saint Paul region's civic infrastructure and collective capacity to disrupt systems and influence market forces to catalyze shared prosperity…

Community Improvement
9
African Development Center

Grow businesses, build wealth and increase reinvestement in the african communities of minnesota

Human Services
10
Raise the Wage Nebraska

Advocacy of policies to support Nebraskans.

—
11
Violence Free Minnesota

To represent victim/survivors of relationship abuse and member programs; challenge systems and institutions; promote social change; and support, educate, and connect member programs.

—
12
Build Wealth Mn Inc

Build Wealth MN's (BWMN) mission is to empower underserved communities and populations in the Twin Cities metro area to achieve social and economic wealth through community, economic, and housing development.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Working Partnerships Inc; the most unlike its peers is Restaurant Opportunities Centers United 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

8 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. 8 of the 10 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RESTAURANT OPPORTUNITIES CENTERS UNITED INC: $520,885 · OtherRESTAURANT OPPORTUNITIES CENTERS UNITED INC+2 more: $23,063 · OtherTAKEACTION MN EDUCATION FUND: $276,460 · Public BenefitTAKEACTION MN EDUCATION…COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS MINNESOTA: $249,427 · Civil RightsCOUNCIL ON AMERICAN-I…UNIDOS MINNESOTA EDUCATION FUND: $110,967 · EducationUNIDOS MI…ISAIAH: $90,040 · ReligionBUILDING DIGNITY AND RESPECT STANDARDS COUNCIL: $33,518 · Community ImprovementCentral Area Neighborhood Development Organization: $10,000 · Community ImprovementWorking Partnerships Inc: $12,500 · Employment
Other$543,948Public Benefit$276,460Civil Rights$249,427Education$110,967Religion$90,040Community Improvement$43,518Employment$12,500

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 budgetRESTAURANT OPPORTUNITIES CENTERS UNITED INC: $520,885 over 5y, 5.5% of budgetTAKEACTION MN EDUCATION FUND: $276,460 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetCOUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS MINNESOTA: $249,427 over 3y, 13% of budgetUNIDOS MINNESOTA EDUCATION FUND: $110,967 over 4y, 3.2% of budgetISAIAH: $90,040 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetBUILDING DIGNITY AND RESPECT STANDARDS COUNCIL: $33,518 over 2y, 14% of budgetWorking Partnerships Inc: $12,500 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetCentral Area Neighborhood Development Organization: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% 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.

Headwaters Foundation…The McKnight Foundati…The Minneapolis Found…Mightycause Charitabl…Solidago FoundationAmalgamated Charitabl…
Headwaters Foundation for JusticeMN15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Headwaters Foundation for Justice · The McKnight Foundation · The Minneapolis Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Solidago Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation 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 Centro de Trabajadores Unidos En Lucha funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Centro de Trabajadores Unidos En Lucha. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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
    5report 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 10 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 Centro de Trabajadores Unidos En Lucha’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