· Public charity
Chicago Area Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust
Labor management cooperative
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 66% of CHICAGO AREA LABORERS-EMPLOYERS COOPERATION AND EDUCATION TRUST’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 7 grants below total $91,900 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $324,440 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $232,540 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $19k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $73k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THREE RIVERS CONSTRUCTION ALLIANCE | $40,000 |
| CLIMATE JOBS ILLINOIS EDUCATION FUND | $12,500 |
| LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| REVOLUTION WORKSHOP | $10,000 |
| ILLINOIS ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE | $7,500 |
| CHICAGOLAND CONSTRUCTION SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION | $6,000 |
| CONCRETE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF GREATER CHICAGO | $5,900 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 25% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
6 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- LDLABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION9× · 2017–2025 · $90k · revenue +11%
University of Illinois Foundation2× · 2018–2019 · $20k · revenue +49%- CCCHICAGOLAND CONSTRUCTION SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION3× · 2023–2025 · $18k · revenue +24%
Funded once
- CTCITIZENS TO PROTECT TRANSPORTATION FUNDINGone grant, 2017 · $50k
- IIIllinois Institute of Technologyone grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue +13%
- IEILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATIONgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $15k · revenue +85%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
A union painting, glazing, and drywall taping contractors association dedicated to improving the industry through negotiating and implementing a collective bargaining agreement, promoting safety, education, and training to its members,…
The slc3 is a community of design and construction industry professionals with a common interest in the betterment of our region through prioritizing innovation, continuing education, equity empowerment and all-inclusive workforce…
To promote unity of action in dealing with employers and to coordinate and consolidate the activities of its various affiliated local unions so they can work in a harmonious and united way.
Betterment of the wage earners working condition
Advancement and promote the transporation design and construction industry in illinois.
To promote job growth and communicate important issues to the public through information campaigns.
Primary purpose is the advancement of heavy highway industry in the state of illinois.
Contractors association of will & grundy counties serves as the voice of the commercial and industrial construction industry and unites our members through labor and government relations, collective bargaining, marketing, networking, and…
To serve and advance the underground industry and its members, who provide quality utility installation for the citizens of illinois, following the highest legal, moral and ethical standards.
To organize workers, negotiate wages and benefit contracts for construction craft laborers in the local construction industry, secure pratical work hours, improve working conditions, and secure othe economical benefits through…
As an interdependent alliance of construction industry leaders, we are collectively committed to positively impacting the future of the industry by strengthening the safe, skilled, and sustainable craft workforce pipeline.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Climate Jobs Illinois Education Fund and the most unlike its peers is Illinois Institute of Technology. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 13 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds THREE RIVERS CONSTRUCTION ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE JOBS ILLINOIS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds Illinois Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds University of Illinois Foundation ↗
- Who funds REVOLUTION WORKSHOP ↗
- Who funds CHICAGOLAND CONSTRUCTION SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Illinois Legislative Black Caucus Foundation ↗
- Who funds ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds HIRE360 ↗
- Who funds Concrete Contractors Association Inc ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Laborers' Int'L Union of North America District Council of Chicago
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Chicago Area Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Chicago Area Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust?
Find your warmest path to Chicago Area Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust 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.