Skip to content
International Longshore and Warehouse Union at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

International Longshore and Warehouse Union

The organization's primary function is to represent and unionize workers.

$60k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$13k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2024.

Employment$274kMembership Benefit$70kPublic Safety & Disaster$26kInternational$20kEnvironment$15kCivil Rights$10kReligion$10kHealth$10k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $25,100, the rows itemized in this filing. The $60,100 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $35,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $13k
$7,500
Median grant
3
States reached
$8.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COAST LONGSHORE DIVISION$12,500
UNITE HERE LOCAL 5$7,500
UNITED SEAMEN'S SERVICE$5,100
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:

Its human-services grants (FY23–23, $6k) 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%LABOR COMMUNITY SERVICES: $6k → 14%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $13k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$13k · 100% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: SPONSORSHIP

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$306k · 3 repeat orgs$154k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
12

Total granted

$306k
$129k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+6%
+15%

Still filing today

100%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Arts & CultureHuman ServicesInternationalEnvironmentOther
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

  • IL
    INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION LOCAL 142
    2× · 2023–2024 · $266k · revenue +6%
  • UF
    UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA
    2× · 2022–2023 · $20k · revenue +17%
  • GH
    GLOBAL HEALTH PARTNERS INC
    2× · 2021–2024 · $20k · revenue -38%

Funded once

  • I1
    ILALOCAL 1526
    one grant, 2019 · $15k
  • KT
    KAHEA THE HAWAIIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCEgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $15k · revenue +78%
  • IL
    ILWU LOCAL 1222
    one grant, 2023 · $12k
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

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Service Employees International Uni Michigan Strength in Action Council

To develop and lead the member local unions' strategy and program across local unions, industries and geographies to build power and win justice for workers, their families and their communities.

—
2
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 825ABCDRRH

The work of the union, as the representative of its members, is to provide for the continuous employment of labor, to bring about stable conditions in the industry, and to establish necessary procedures for resolutions of disputes between…

—
3
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

To organize all workers for the economic, moral, and social advancement of their condition and status.

Employment
4
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…

—
5
Seiu Local 2015

Seiu local 2015 is a chartered local union of the service employees international union and is an unincorporated, tax-exempt association currently representing bargaining unit members.

—
6
Laborers International Union of North America

Representing members in matters of collective bargaining.

—
7
Service Employees International Union

Bargain collectively with employers to secure better working conditions, wages, and benefits for workers.

—
8
Service Employees International Union 1199 New England Health Care Employee

The objectives of the district are:(a) to organize and unite all workers within its jurisdiction without regard to race, color, gender, age, national origin, political belief, political affiliation, religious preference, personal…

—
9
Unite Here Local 49

Labor organization providing collective bargaining representation to its membership.

—
10
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 4

The union improves working conditions and living standards of members through collective bargaining, education, training and employee benefits and establishes necessary procedures for the amicable adjustment of all disputes which may arise…

—
11
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 624

The organization is a trade union that represents operating engineers, who work as heavy equipment operators, mechanics,and surveyors in the construction industry, and stationary engineers, who work in operations and maintenance in…

—
12
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98

The objectives of the union as the representative of its members, are to improve working conditions and living standards of members through collective bargaining, education, training and employee benefits and to establish necessary…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Seamens Service Inc; the most unlike its peers is Unite Here Local 5. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

12 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. 12 of the 18 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION LOCAL 142: $266,110 · OtherINTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION LOCAL 142UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA: $20,000 · OtherILALOCAL 1526: $15,000 · Other+11 more: $107,797 · Other+11 moreGLOBAL HEALTH PARTNERS INC: $20,000 · InternationalKAHEA THE HAWAIIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE: $15,000 · EnvironmentTHE MIGUEL CONTRERAS FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Arts & CultureLABOR COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM OF LOS ANGELES: $6,000 · Human Services
Other$408,907International$20,000Environment$15,000Arts & Culture$10,000Human Services$6,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetINTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION LOCAL 142: $266,110 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetUNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGLOBAL HEALTH PARTNERS INC: $20,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetKAHEA THE HAWAIIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE: $15,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetALEXS LEMONADE STAND FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE MIGUEL CONTRERAS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCOALITION OF BLACK TRADE UNIONISTS: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetLABOR COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM OF LOS ANGELES: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

Seiu Local 2015Fidelity Investments …
Seiu Local 2015CA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Seiu Local 2015 · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 International Longshore and Warehouse Union funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from International Longshore and Warehouse Union. 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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.

    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 18 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 International Longshore and Warehouse Union’s filings →

    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