· Public charity
Fund for Construction Industry Advancement
Advancement of construction industry
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 91% of FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ADVANCEMENT’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.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k2 grants · $54k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $1.0M
- $250k+6 grants · $2.7M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AGC LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM | $640,617 |
| SCCA LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM | $638,563 |
| AGC CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION FOUNDATION | $472,509 |
| UCON LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM | $429,707 |
| CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FORCE ACCOUNT COUNCIL | $277,738 |
| CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY COALITION FOR WATER QUALITY | $273,770 |
| CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AIR QUALITY COALITION | $200,923 |
| BUILDING INDUSTRY LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION | $179,816 |
| CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA | $150,772 |
| UCON INDUSTRY RELATIONS | $135,420 |
| SCCA SCHOLARSHIP FUND | $106,905 |
| UCON PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT | $92,538 |
| SCCA MARKETING OUTREACH | $71,270 |
| SCCA CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY | $62,361 |
| TRANS PERMITS PROGRAM STRATIGIC VENTURES - SUZANNE SCHEIDEKER COOK LLC | $33,656 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 73% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +23% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.
12 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down.
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 FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
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
- AGASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA INC8× · 2017–2024 · $6.9M · revenue +73%
- SCSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION8× · 2017–2024 · $5.5M · revenue +51% · 48% of their budget
- CICONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY COALITION ON WATER QUALITY8× · 2017–2024 · $2.0M · revenue +23% · 75% of their budget
Funded once
- E-ECA -SECURE WATER ALLIANCEone grant, 2023 · $79k
- TCTRANSPORTATION CALIFORNIAone grant, 2017 · $35k · revenue +19%
- ASAGC SAFETY LENDING LIBRARYone grant, 2018 · $2k
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.
The purpose of the association is to represent its members in the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements with representatives of labor, providing for terms and conditions of employment and the administration of grievances. in…
To organize, increase collective bargaining support and publicize labor issues related to the construction industry within los angeles and orange counties.
To provide members with an instrument through which they may coordinate their efforts to solve problems, establish and maintain business standards, and promote and encourage the use of industry products.
To strengthen California's engineering and surveying business to build a better California.
To promote the advancement of the construction industry and free enterprise
Negotiation between employers & unions.
The purpose of the construction users roundtable (curt) is to promote cost effectiveness in the construction industry by providing aggressive leadership on issues that significantly improve project engineering, maintenance and construction…
The southern nevada building and construction trades councils primary purpose is to communicate to affiliated unions on labor issues, assist with organizing & strive for the use of project
All activities conducted by the association are to enable it to:a. establish a better understanding between the members and companies in the construction and related industries.b. foster reasonable and just regulations by governments c.…
Empowering Minority Contractors and advocating for them in the construction industry.
To inform california legislators and regulators of concerns to commercial property owners and to inform its members of legislative and regulatory actions.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Construction Industry Force Account Council and the most unlike its peers is Futureports. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 15 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 ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY COALITION ON WATER QUALITY ↗
- Who funds CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FORCE ACCOUNT COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF SO CA INC ↗
- Who funds CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AIR QUALITY COALT ↗
- Who funds ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATIO ↗
- Who funds ENGINEERING & UTILITY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION DBA UNITED CONTRACTORS ↗
- Who funds CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM ↗
- Who funds FUTUREPORTS ↗
- Who funds TRANSPORTATION CALIFORNIA ↗
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: Construction Industry Advancement Fund for Southern California
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 Fund for Construction Industry Advancement 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.