Skip to content

· Public charity

Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No 46

To organize workers in the electrical industry, including public utilities and manufacturing, into local unions, promote reasonable methods of work, settle disputes between employers and employees by arbitration, assist members, reduce hours, secure adequate pay for work, seek a higher standard of living for members, seek security for…

$301k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$100k
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 2024.

Public Benefit$614kEmployment$148kCommunity Improvement$113kCivil Rights$56kPublic Safety & Disaster$48kInternational$29kEnvironment$27kRecreation & Sports$13kOther$0
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $204,815, the rows itemized in this filing. The $301,077 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $96,262 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k4 grants · $25k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $79k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$21M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
IBEW- Political Action Committee$100,460
WA St Democratic Central Comm$30,000
IBEW$28,955
Electrcl Wrks Minority Caucus$10,000
No on 2117 Committee$10,000
Washington Women in Trades$7,900
Electrical Workers 46 PAC$6,000
Kent Station Retail LLC$6,000
IBEW LOCAL 77$5,500
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 (FY22–22, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%El Centro de la Raza: $10k → 9%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.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$828k · 9 repeat orgs$244k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
16

Total granted

$828k
$194k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+18%
+139%

Still filing today

56%
31%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EmploymentCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationCrime & LegalOther
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

  • IB
    INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
    2× · 2023–2024 · $57k · revenue +18%
  • SA
    Sound Alliance
    5× · 2017–2021 · $50k · revenue +5%
  • IB
    INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 77 & SUBS
    3× · 2021–2024 · $17k · revenue +21%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $48k
  • TE
    Tribal Electric LLC
    one grant, 2023 · $21k
  • WW
    Washington Works for US PAC
    one grant, 2017 · $20k
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
Int'l Brotherhood Electrical Workers

Representation of workers

—
2
Electical Workers Indianapolis Motorcycle Group Inc
Human Services
3
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 349

Maintain labor relations and promote the interest of its members in their employment as electrical workers.

—
4
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 72

Local Labor Union Representing Members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

—
5
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Ks State Assn

To coordinate the political and legislative effort of local unions

Employment
6
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 0681 Local

Local Labor Union Representing Members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Employment
7
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 606

The Union and its employees work for the benefit of its membership including negotiations of wages, benefits, and working conditions.

—
8
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 194 Local

Labor union - electrical workers

—
9
Afl-Cio Snohomish & Island County Labor Council

Member, affiliate, and community education for worker's issues - union and non-union

—
10
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 342

Labor union representing the electrical worker force

—
11
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 288

To organize all electrical workers in the construction industry, to promote goodwill among all of those in our trade, to assist each other in sickness and in distress, to secure employment for our members, to secure adequate pay for our…

—
12
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Afl-Cio Local 1340

To provide the members of the local electrical union with services and benefits.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the most unlike its peers is No on 2117 Committee. 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 28 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
10/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

IBEW- Political Action Committee: $553,558 · OtherIBEW- Political Action CommitteeElectrical Workers 46 PAC: $71,000 · OtherElectrical Workers 46 PACINTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS: $57,065 · OtherINTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERSIndividual grant recipient: $48,000 · Other+18 more: $239,458 · Other+18 moreSound Alliance: $50,000 · Community ImprovementWASHINGTON WOMEN IN TRADES ASSOCIATION: $19,700 · EmploymentElectrical Workers Minority Caucus of San Diego and Imperial Counties: $10,000 · EmploymentEL CENTRO DE LA RAZA: $10,000 · Human ServicesRENTON TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $8,000 · EducationA LEGACY OF EQUALITY LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZING: $5,200 · Crime & Legal
Other$969,081Community Improvement$50,000Employment$29,700Human Services$10,000Education$8,000Crime & Legal$5,200

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetINTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS: $57,065 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSound Alliance: $50,000 over 5y, 7.3% of budgetWASHINGTON WOMEN IN TRADES ASSOCIATION: $19,700 over 2y, 16% of budgetINTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 77 & SUBS: $17,472 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetForth: $16,796 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMARTIN LUTHER KING JR COUNTY LABOR COUNCIL: $12,046 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetAPPRENTICESHIP AND NONTRADITIONAL EMPLOYMENT FOR WOMEN: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetEL CENTRO DE LA RAZA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNo on 2117 Committee: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRENTON TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $8,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetA LEGACY OF EQUALITY LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZING: $5,200 over 1y, 1.4% 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 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS ↗
  • Who funds Sound Alliance ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON WOMEN IN TRADES ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 77 & SUBS ↗
  • Who funds Forth ↗
  • Who funds MARTIN LUTHER KING JR COUNTY LABOR COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds Electrical Workers Minority Caucus of San Diego and Imperial Counties ↗
  • Who funds APPRENTICESHIP AND NONTRADITIONAL EMPLOYMENT FOR WOMEN ↗
  • Who funds EL CENTRO DE LA RAZA ↗
  • Who funds No on 2117 Committee ↗
  • Who funds RENTON TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds A LEGACY OF EQUALITY LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZING ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Seattle FoundationWA12.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Seattle Foundation

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 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No 46 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No 46. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–20%
    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 28 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No 46’s filings →

    More from the funding graph