Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersAlso receives grants — funding profile →
Plinth

· Public charity

Great Lakes Region Organizing Committee

To conduct organizing activites within the jurisdictional areas of affiliated district councils and their affiliated local unions and to promote unity of action in dealing with employers to coordinate and consolidate the activities of affiliated district councils.

$6.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
35
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$2.3M
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.

Employment$26MMembership Benefit$2.1MCivil Rights$1.2MPhilanthropy$283kEnvironment$220kCrime & Legal$200kScience & Tech$124kHuman Services$108kOther$0
02FY2025 · 35 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k14 grants · $205k
  • $50k–250k14 grants · $1.4M
  • $250k+4 grants · $4.3M
$100,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$49M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHIGAN LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL$2,250,000
MINNESOTANORTH DAKOTA LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL$935,500
WISCONSIN LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL$891,500
LABORERS PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGIONAL ORGANIZING COALITION$250,000
LABORERS' LOCAL UNION 582$100,300
LABORERS' LOCAL UNION 75$100,000
LABORERS' LOCAL UNION 1035$100,000
LABORERS' LOCAL UNION 1$100,000
LABORERS' LOCAL UNION 76$100,000
LABORERS' LOCAL UNION 1001$100,000
LABORERS' LOCAL UNION 4$100,000
LABORERS' LOCAL UNION 6$100,000
LABORERS' LOCAL UNION 2$100,000
LABORERS' LOCAL UNION 152$100,000
LABORERS' LOCAL UNION 5$100,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY21–22, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SERVING OUR TROOPS: $10k → 14%SERVING OUR TROOPS: $10k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

Which US states your grants reach

MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
NV
IA
PA
CA
MD
TN
DC

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$28M · 38 repeat orgs$1.8M to everyone else

38 repeat relationships — 28 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

38
21

Total granted

$28M
$1.7M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+20%
+27%

Still filing today

89%
57%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $70k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationPhilanthropyEmploymentArts & CulturePublic Safety & DisasterInternationalOther

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

  • LI
    Laborers International Union of State of MI
    8× · 2017–2025 · $6.7M · revenue +164% · 63% of their budget
  • WL
    WISCONSIN LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL
    9× · 2017–2025 · $3.9M · revenue +47% · 33% of their budget
  • LI
    LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA UNION LOCAL # 6
    9× · 2017–2025 · $940k · revenue +9%

Funded once

  • VY
    VOTE YES FOR WORKERS RIGHTS
    one grant, 2023 · $1.0M
  • AF
    ALL FOR JUSTICE
    one grant, 2023 · $200k
  • CT
    CITIZENS TO PROTECT TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
    one grant, 2017 · $200k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Laborers' International Union of North America Laborers' Local #43

Promote and protect the interests of the members of the local

—
2
Laborers International Union of 341 Hcl

Union hall devoted to the betterment of members compensation and working conditions, to secure recognition of workers rights to engage in collective bargaining, and to promote the development and maintenance of on-the-job safety practices…

—
3
Laborers International Union of North America - Local 1076

The local is a nonprofit organization established to represent its members in wage and fringe benefits matters in the construction industry. the local's primary areas of jurisdiction are oakland and livingston counties.

—
4
Laborers International Union of North America Local #165

Operation of local union.

—
5
Laborers International Union of Na Great Plains Laborers' District Council

Provide assistance to member locals with all union related activities.

—
6
Laborers International Union of North America Local Union 44

Provide benefits of union membership

—
7
Laborer's International Union of North a

A fraternal labor organization whose purpose is to promote employment of members in a safe work environment and ensurefair labor practices.

—
8
Laborers Intl Union of North America Local 327 Local Union

Membership organization representing approximately 300 union members for the purpose of collective bargaining.

—
9
Laborers International Union of North America Local 872

To provide continuous employment, collectively bargain for improvement of working conditions and wages.

—
10
Laborers International Union of North America

Representing members in matters of collective bargaining.

—
11
Construction and Public Employees Liuna Local #177

Operation of laborers local union for the benefit of its members.

—
12
Laborers International Union of North America Local No 261

The local union engages in collective bargaining, grievance representation and benefits administration on behalf of its membership.

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Laborers' International Union of North America and the most unlike its peers is Dc Friends of Ireland Charitable Trust. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyCommunity FoundationsImmigrant Worker SupportMilitary Veterans SupportFaith-Based Liberal Arts Co…Cancer Support Services
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 58 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%4%<5yr14%2%5–10yr19%9%10–20yr16%17%20–35yr13%4%35–55yr16%64%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%0%<5yr14%0%5–10yr19%1%10–20yr16%1%20–35yr13%0%35–55yr16%98%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/59
the rest of the field
13%
240,396/1,819,506

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

04the grantee network

49 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. 49 of the 66 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
49/49
Grantees still filing
40/49
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Laborers International Union of State of MI — $6,695,581 · OtherLaborers International Union of State of MILABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA - DISTRICT COUNCIL OF MN AND ND — $4,706,205 · OtherLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA - DISTRICT COUNCIL OF MN AND NDWISCONSIN LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL — $3,887,091 · OtherWISCONSIN LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCILVOTE YES FOR WORKERS RIGHTS — $1,007,500 · Other+43 more — $11,934,821 · Other+43 moreThe Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition — $725,000 · EmploymentLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL 225 — $591,667 · EmploymentCENTRO DE TRABAJADORES UNIDOS EN LUCHA — $85,000 · EmploymentIllinois Institute of Technology — $100,000 · EducationJESSE WHITE FOUNDATION LTD — $42,500 · EducationMICHIGAN LABORERS SCHOLARSHIP FUND — $30,000 · EducationIRISH FELLOWSHIP EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL FOUNDATION — $13,200 · EducationPEGGY BROWNING FUND — $10,000 · EducationSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS MIKE QUEVEDO SR SCHOLARSHIP FUND — $10,000 · EducationMIKVA CHALLENGE GRANT FOUNDATION — $10,000 · EducationDEPAUL UNIVERSITY — $7,500 · EducationLABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION — $150,000 · PhilanthropyDC FRIENDS OF IRELAND CHARITABLE TRUST — $38,000 · PhilanthropyGREAT PLAINS LIFE FOUNDATION INC — $11,000 · PhilanthropyTENDERS INC — $10,000 · PhilanthropyJOHN WILLIAM HALE FOUNDATION — $87,500 · Public Safety & DisasterAMERICAN IRISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC — $25,000 · Arts & CultureILLINOIS LABOR HISTORY SOCIETY — $5,500 · Arts & CultureIllinois Legislative Black Caucus Foundation — $26,200 · Civil Rights
Other$28,231,198Employment$1,401,667Education$223,200Philanthropy$209,000Public Safety & Disaster$87,500Arts & Culture$30,500Civil Rights$26,200

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetLaborers International Union of State of MI — $6,695,581 over 8y, 63% of budgetLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA - DISTRICT COUNCIL OF MN AND ND — $4,706,205 over 8y, 21% of budgetWISCONSIN LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL — $3,887,091 over 9y, 33% of budgetLABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA UNION LOCAL # 6 — $940,000 over 9y, 5.9% of budgetLABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1092 — $910,000 over 9y, 4.4% of budgetLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL 152 — $902,192 over 9y, 6.2% of budgetLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL #582 — $900,850 over 9y, 3.7% of budgetLABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL NO 5 — $900,000 over 9y, 5.9% of budgetLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 4 — $900,000 over 9y, 3.5% of budgetLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 76 — $900,000 over 9y, 3.6% of budgetCOUNTY MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' SUPERVISORS AND FOREMEN'S UNION LOCAL 1001 — $900,000 over 9y, 3.9% of budgetLIUNA LABORERS LOCAL 68 — $900,000 over 9y, 2.4% of budgetLABORERS INT'L UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LABOR LOCAL 75 — $900,000 over 9y, 4.4% of budgetThe Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition — $725,000 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL 225 — $591,667 over 6y, 2.8% of budgetLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NA SEWER AND TUNNEL MINERS UNION LOCAL 2 — $375,000 over 4y, 2.4% of budgetLABORERS AFL-CIO LOCAL 1035 — $300,000 over 3y, 9.6% of budgetAMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS — $217,049 over 2y, 6.3% of budgetLABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA UNION LOCAL # 1 — $200,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetCHICAGO FEDERATION OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL UNION COUNCIL — $181,260 over 7y, 2.2% of budgetLABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION — $150,000 over 9y, 10% of budgetIllinois Institute of Technology — $100,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetJOHN WILLIAM HALE FOUNDATION — $87,500 over 7y, 19% of budgetTERENCE J O'SULLIVAN LIUNA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION — $85,000 over 5y, 1.6% of budgetCENTRO DE TRABAJADORES UNIDOS EN LUCHA — $85,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetJESSE WHITE FOUNDATION LTD — $42,500 over 3y, 6.5% of budgetDC FRIENDS OF IRELAND CHARITABLE TRUST — $38,000 over 4y, 4.0% of budgetMICHIGAN LABORERS SCHOLARSHIP FUND — $30,000 over 3y, 7.8% of budgetILLINOIS DELIVERS — $30,000 over 2y, 27% of budgetDC FRIENDS OF IRELAND — $30,000 over 3y, 3.9% of budgetIllinois Legislative Black Caucus Foundation — $26,200 over 1y, 11% of budgetAMERICAN IRISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC — $25,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetGROUND HOG CLUB OF CHICAGO — $23,520 over 3y, 3.5% of budgetMID-AMERICA REGULATORY CONFERENCE INC — $20,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetSAINT PAUL SERVES FOUNDATION — $20,000 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetWASHINGTON IRELAND PROGRAM FOR SERVICE & LEADERSHIP — $15,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetLABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA — $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLABORERS' INT'L UNION OF NORTH AMERICA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CHICAGO — $13,950 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetIRISH FELLOWSHIP EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL FOUNDATION — $13,200 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetSpecial Children's Charities — $13,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetGREAT PLAINS LIFE FOUNDATION INC — $11,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetPEGGY BROWNING FUND — $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTENDERS INC — $10,000 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetMIKVA CHALLENGE GRANT FOUNDATION — $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetDEPAUL UNIVERSITY — $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetILLINOIS LABOR HISTORY SOCIETY — $5,500 over 1y, 6.7% of budget
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.

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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Laborers' Int'L Union…International Union o…Int'L Union of Brickl…The Laborers Northwes…Laborers' Internation…International Union o…The Bank of America C…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Laborers' Int'L Union of North America District Council of ChicagoIL20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Laborers' Int'L Union of North America District Council of Chicago · International Union of Operating Engineers Local No 399 · Int'L Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Admin District Council · The Laborers Northwest Regional Organizing Coalition · Laborers' International Union of North America · International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Great Lakes Region Organizing Committee 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.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%5%19%42%75%your share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 66 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    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