· Public charity
Laborers' District Council Labor- Management Cooperation Committee
Labor management cooperative
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 3 grants below total $395,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $447,015 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $52,015 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
- $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $380k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNTAPPED POTENTIAL PROJECT | $205,000 |
| ILLINOIS ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS | $175,000 |
| LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION | $15,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 78% of your 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 +47% since the first grant, against +2% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 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, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $175k 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
- UPUntapped Potential Project4× · 2021–2025 · $635k · revenue ×13 · 100% of their budget
- LDLABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION7× · 2018–2025 · $101k · revenue -16%
- CJCLIMATE JOBS ILLINOIS EDUCATION FUND3× · 2020–2024 · $50k
Funded once
- FBFIGHT BACK FUNDone grant, 2024 · $200k · revenue 0%
- PCPRIORITES CHICAGOone grant, 2024 · $100k
- TFTransportation for Illinois Coalitionone grant, 2019 · $50k · revenue +2%
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.
To promote job growth and communicate important issues to the public through information campaigns.
To educate and advocate for a pro-climate agenda that prioritizes policies in support of current and future illinois workers.
A union painting, glazing, and drywall taping contractors association dedicated to improving the industry through negotiating and implementing a collective bargaining agreement, promoting safety, education, and training to its members,…
To promote the improvements & advancements of quality asphalt pavement construction in Illinois and to provide assistance to our members in the areas of research, technical specifications, environmental issues, education, promotion,…
Primary purpose is the advancement of heavy highway industry in the state of illinois.
Public education on current public policy issues
Advocate for tort reform in Illinois by communicating with public officials and staff to influence legislation and administrative action designed to create a more equitable and balanced judicial system in Illinois.
To organize all workers for the econimic, moral and social advancement of their condition and status.
To engage working men and women, and the community at large, in order to improve health, income, and education. The organization's services are substantially supported through funding from governmental units or direct contributions from…
To promote and protect the interests of the asbestos abatement industry, lead abatement and other environmental organizations through education and dissemination of critical industry developments through industry alerts
Research and recommendations on tax and spending issues
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Climate Jobs Illinois Education Fund and the most unlike its peers is Illinois Institute of Technology. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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. 10 of the 11 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 Untapped Potential Project ↗
- Who funds FIGHT BACK FUND ↗
- Who funds ILLINOIS ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Transportation for Illinois Coalition ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE JOBS ILLINOIS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds Illinois Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds CLEAN ENERGY CHOICE COALITION ↗
- Who funds ILLINOIS ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds HIRE360 ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Indiana Illinois & Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting
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 Laborers' District Council Labor- Management Cooperation 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Laborers' District Council Labor- Management Cooperation Committee?
Find your warmest path to Laborers' District Council Labor- Management Cooperation Committee 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.