Skip to content
Laborers' District Council Labor- Management Cooperation Committee at a glance

· Public charity

Laborers' District Council Labor- Management Cooperation Committee

Labor management cooperative

$447k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$205k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Education$660kEmployment$206kCrime & Legal$175kPhilanthropy$101kPublic Benefit$100kEnvironment$75kCommunity Improvement$65k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $395,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $447,015 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $52,015 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

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $380k
$175,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$19M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNTAPPED POTENTIAL PROJECT$205,000
ILLINOIS ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS$175,000
LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION$15,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 78% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $15k → 7%TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLINOIS COALITION: $50k → 11%CHICAGO FORWARD: $100k → 14%LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $15k → 7%CLIMATE JOBS ILLINOIS EDUCATION FUND: $25k → 11%UNTAPPED POTENTIAL PROJECT: $230k → 14%LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $15k → 7%CLIMATE JOBS ILLINOIS EDUCATION FUND: $13k → 11%UNTAPPED POTENTIAL PROJECT: $205k → 14%LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $15k → 7%CLIMATE JOBS ILLINOIS EDUCATION FUND: $13k → 11%UNTAPPED POTENTIAL PROJECT: $150k → 14%LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $15k → 7%ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $25k → 14%LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $15k → 7%HIRE 360: $6k → 14%LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $11k → 7%FIGHT BACK FUND: $200k → 14%ILLINOIS ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS: $175k → 7%ILLINOIS ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE: $8k → 14%CLEAN ENERGY CHOICE COALITION: $25k → 7%ILLINOIS ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE: $8k → 14%UNTAPPED POTENTIAL PROJECT: $50k → 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.
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.

58%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$801k · 4 repeat orgs$581k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +47% since the first grant, against +2% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
6

Total granted

$801k
$406k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+47%
+2%

Still filing today

100%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $175k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Community ImprovementPhilanthropyEmploymentEducationEnvironmentOther
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

  • UP
    Untapped Potential Project
    4× · 2021–2025 · $635k · revenue ×13 · 100% of their budget
  • LD
    LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION
    7× · 2018–2025 · $101k · revenue -16%
  • CJ
    CLIMATE JOBS ILLINOIS EDUCATION FUND
    3× · 2020–2024 · $50k

Funded once

  • FB
    FIGHT BACK FUND
    one grant, 2024 · $200k · revenue 0%
  • PC
    PRIORITES CHICAGO
    one grant, 2024 · $100k
  • TF
    Transportation for Illinois Coalition
    one grant, 2019 · $50k · revenue +2%
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
Illinois Coalition for Jobs Growth and Prosperity

To promote job growth and communicate important issues to the public through information campaigns.

Community Improvement
2
Climate Jobs Illinois Inc

To educate and advocate for a pro-climate agenda that prioritizes policies in support of current and future illinois workers.

Environment
3
Fca of Illinois

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,…

Community Improvement
4
Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association

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,…

—
5
Illinois Fiscal Policy Council
Public Benefit
6
The Associated General Contractors Industry Advancement Fund

Primary purpose is the advancement of heavy highway industry in the state of illinois.

Employment
7
Citizen Action Illinois Education Fund

Public education on current public policy issues

Public Benefit
8
Illinois Coalition for Legal Reform

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.

Community Improvement
9
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations

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

—
10
Chicago Federation of Labor Workforce and Community Initiative

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…

Employment
11
Illinois Environmental Contractors Association

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

—
12
Taxpayers' Federation of Illinois

Research and recommendations on tax and spending issues

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Climate Jobs Illinois Education Fund; 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.
04the grantee network

10 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. 10 of the 11 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Untapped Potential Project: $635,000 · PhilanthropyUntapped Potential ProjectLABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $100,890 · PhilanthropyLABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONILLINOIS ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION: $175,000 · OtherILLINOIS ROAD AND TRAN…PRIORITES CHICAGO: $100,000 · OtherPRIORITES CHICAGOFIGHT BACK FUND: $200,000 · EmploymentFIGHT BACK FUND+1 more: $6,250 · EmploymentTransportation for Illinois Coalition: $50,000 · Community ImprovementCLEAN ENERGY CHOICE COALITION: $25,000 · Community ImprovementILLINOIS ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE: $15,000 · Community ImprovementCLIMATE JOBS ILLINOIS EDUCATION FUND: $50,000 · EnvironmentIllinois Institute of Technology: $25,000 · Education
Philanthropy$735,890Other$275,000Employment$206,250Community Improvement$90,000Environment$50,000Education$25,000

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 budgetUntapped Potential Project: $635,000 over 4y, 100% of budgetFIGHT BACK FUND: $200,000 over 1y, 7.5% of budgetLABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $100,890 over 7y, 6.3% of budgetCLIMATE JOBS ILLINOIS EDUCATION FUND: $50,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetIllinois Institute of Technology: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCLEAN ENERGY CHOICE COALITION: $25,000 over 1y, 8.4% of budgetILLINOIS ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE: $15,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetHIRE360: $6,250 over 1y, 0.1% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Indiana Illinois & Io…
Indiana Illinois & Iowa Foundation for Fair ContractingIL13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Indiana Illinois & Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting

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 Laborers' District Council Labor- Management Cooperation Committee funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Laborers' District Council Labor- Management Cooperation Committee. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    0get no government money at all
    1report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    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.

    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 11 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 Laborers' District Council Labor- Management Cooperation Committee’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