Skip to content

· Public charity

Glaziers Archit Metal Workers and Glass Workers Union Loc No 252 Pinpointing Fd

The purpose of the fund is to subsidize the amount a contributing employer pays for fringe benefits and wages in order to aid competitiveness in obtaining contracts, which otherwise may be lost to non-union contractors.

$1.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$445k
Largest
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.

Employment$16M
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$310,099
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
IUPAT PENSION FUND$445,328
IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL 21 WELFARE FUND$310,099
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES DC 21 ANNUITY FUND$302,915
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 72% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ADVANCED GLASS & METAL: $10k → 7%IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL 21 WELFARE FUND: $1.2M → 22%IUPAT Pension Fund: $388k → 14%IUPAT PENSION FUND: $812k → 6%IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL 21 WELFARE FUND: $956k → 22%IUPAT PENSION FUND: $341k → 14%IUPAT PENSION FUND: $792k → 6%IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL 21 WELFARE FUND: $939k → 22%IUPAT PENSION FUND: $715k → 6%IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL 21 WELFARE FUND: $705k → 22%IUPAT PENSION FUND: $697k → 6%IUPAT District Council 21 Welfare Fund: $674k → 22%IUPAT PENSION FUND: $563k → 6%INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES DC 21 ANNUITY FUND: $645k → 22%IUPAT PENSION FUND: $445k → 6%INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES DC 21 ANNUITY FUND: $600k → 22%IUPAT PENSION FUND: $333k → 6%INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES DC 21 ANNUITY FUND: $552k → 22%IUPAT FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE: $9k → 6%IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL 21 WELFARE FUND: $542k → 22%IUPAT FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE: $7k → 6%IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL 21 WELFARE FUND: $535k → 22%IUPAT Finishing Trades Trades Institute (Apprentice Training): $6k → 6%IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL 21 WELFARE FUND: $494k → 22%IUPAT FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE: $3k → 6%INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES DC 21 ANNUITY FUND: $487k → 22%INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES DC 21 ANNUITY FUND: $418k → 22%FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION: $138k → 22%International Union of Painters & Allied Trades DC 21 Annuity Fund: $331k → 22%FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION: $113k → 22%IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL 21 WELFARE FUND: $310k → 22%IUPAT District Council 21 Apprenticeship Training & Journeyperson Education: $82k → 22%INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES DC 21 ANNUITY FUND: $303k → 22%FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION: $65k → 22%INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES DC 21 ANNUITY FUND: $265k → 22%FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION: $44k → 22%INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES DC 21 ANNUITY FUND: $255k → 22%FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION: $32k → 22%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$16M · 5 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
1

Total granted

$16M
$10k

Still filing today

60%
0%

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
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

  • ID
    IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 21 WELFARE FUND
    9× · 2017–2025 · $6.3M · revenue +109%
  • FT
    FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION
    6× · 2017–2022 · $473k · revenue +105%
  • IF
    IUPAT - FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE
    4× · 2017–2021 · $25k · revenue +114%

Funded once

  • AG
    ADVANCED GLASS & METAL
    one grant, 2019 · $10k
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

3 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. 3 of the 6 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
3/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 21 WELFARE FUND: $6,321,483 · OtherIUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 21 WELFARE FUNDIUPAT PENSION FUND: $5,086,810 · OtherIUPAT PENSION FUNDINTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES DC 21 ANNUITY FUND: $3,856,625 · OtherINTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES DC 21 ANNUITY FUND+3 more: $507,903 · Other
Other$15,772,821

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetIUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 21 WELFARE FUND: $6,321,483 over 9y, 2.1% of budgetFINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION: $473,428 over 6y, 3.1% of budgetIUPAT - FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE: $24,935 over 4y, 0.1% 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 IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 21 WELFARE FUND ↗
  • Who funds FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION ↗
  • Who funds IUPAT - FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE ↗

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.

Iupat District Council No 21 Job Recovery FundPA15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Iupat District Council No 21 Job Recovery Fund · Iupat District Council No 21 Drywall Finishers Local No 1955 Pinpoin

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 Glaziers Archit Metal Workers and Glass Workers Union Loc No 252 Pinpointing Fd funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Glaziers Archit Metal Workers and Glass Workers Union Loc No 252 Pinpointing Fd. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 56%
  • Iupat - Finishing Trades Institute: 56% of 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)
1rely on government for over half their income
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 Glaziers Archit Metal Workers and Glass Workers Union Loc No 252 Pinpointing Fd?

Find your warmest path to Glaziers Archit Metal Workers and Glass Workers Union Loc No 252 Pinpointing Fd 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 6 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 Glaziers Archit Metal Workers and Glass Workers Union Loc No 252 Pinpointing Fd’s filings →

More from the funding graph