· Public charity
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No 134
Labor union
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 90% of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO 134’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 4 grants below total $143,200 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $794,156 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $650,956 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 $10k2 grants · $16k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $27k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| IBEW UNITY FUND | $100,000 |
| LOCAL 134 CFL DELEGATE SCHOLARSHIP FUND | $26,900 |
| Individual grant recipient | $8,800 |
| BMA MEDIA GROUP | $7,500 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY21–21, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those 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 +25% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 3 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, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $16k 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
- L1LOCAL 134 CFL DELEGATE SCHOLARSHIP FUND INC9× · 2017–2025 · $206k · revenue +48% · 38% of their budget
- IBINTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS3× · 2017–2025 · $160k · revenue +25%
- USUNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE2× · 2021–2022 · $11k · revenue +14%
Funded once
- VYVOTE YES FOR WORKERS RIGHTSone grant, 2022 · $237k
- IPIBEW PAC EDUCATION FUNDone grant, 2018 · $195k
- EWELECTRICAL WORKERS HISTORICAL SOCIETYone grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue -56%
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.
Labor union - electrical workers
Labor union representing the electrical worker force
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…
Labor union
Labor organization
Local Labor Union Representing Members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
Local Labor Union Representing Members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Provide improved wages, fringes benefits and working conditions for members through organizing and collective bargaining
Labor union
Labor Organizing
Labor union
To provide the members of the local electrical union with services and benefits.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and the most unlike its peers is Ibew Local 134 Helping Hand 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.
9 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. 9 of the 18 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 LOCAL 134 CFL DELEGATE SCHOLARSHIP FUND INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS ↗
- Who funds ELECTRICAL WORKERS HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Illinois Legislative Black Caucus Foundation ↗
- Who funds UNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO FEDERATION OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL UNION COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds IBEW Local 134 Helping Hand Charitable Trust ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS ↗
- Who funds A PHILIP RANDOLPH PULLMAN PORTER MUSEUM ↗
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.
Open a dossier: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations · International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No 196 · Local Union No 9 - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · Local Union No 126 Int'L Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 702 · International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 252 · Laborers' Int'L Union of North America District Council of Chicago · Great Lakes Region Organizing Committee · International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No 5 · International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
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 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No 134 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.