Skip to content
Laborers International Union of Na Great Plains Laborers' District Council at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Laborers International Union of Na Great Plains Laborers' District Council

Provide assistance to member locals with all union related activities.

$317k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$87k
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$1.3MMembership Benefit$320kPublic Benefit$11k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $300,002, the rows itemized in this filing. The $316,655 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $16,653 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 · $11k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $289k
$67,138
Median grant
3
States reached
$4.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LABORERS LOCAL #620$87,138
LABORERS LOCAL #43$67,138
LABORERS LOCAL #177$67,138
LABORERS LOCAL #751$67,138
GREAT PLAINS LECET$11,450
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 62% 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 LOCAL #1140: $50k → 12%IOWA LABORERS' EDUCATION AND TRAINING TRUST FUND: $50k → 6%LABORERS LOCAL #43: $70k → 9%LABORERS LOCAL #177: $70k → 10%MIDWEST REGION VETERANS COMMITTEE: $11k → 11%LABORERS LOCAL #362: $70k → 11%LABORERS LOCAL #751: $67k → 14%LABORERS LOCAL #165: $100k → 14%LABORERS LOCAL #309: $67k → 15%LABORERS LOCAL #620: $120k → 9%LABORERS LOCAL #1140: $50k → 12%LABORERS LOCAL #43: $67k → 9%LABORERS LOCAL #177: $67k → 10%LABORERS LOCAL #751: $60k → 14%LABORERS LOCAL #165: $50k → 14%LABORERS LOCAL #620: $87k → 9%LABORERS LOCAL #1140: $50k → 12%LABORERS LOCAL #43: $60k → 9%LABORERS LOCAL #177: $60k → 10%GREAT PLAINS LECET: $11k → 14%LABORERS LOCAL #620: $50k → 9%LABORERS LOCAL #1140: $40k → 12%LABORERS LOCAL #43: $50k → 9%IOWA LECET: $50k → 10%LABORERS LOCAL #1140: $25k → 12%LABORERS LOCAL #43: $50k → 9%LABORERS LOCAL #177: $50k → 10%LABORERS LOCAL #1140: $25k → 12%LABORERS LOCAL #43: $50k → 9%LABORERS LOCAL #177: $50k → 10%LABORERS LOCAL #1140: $10k → 12%LABORERS LOCAL #43: $40k → 9%LABORERS LOCAL #177: $50k → 10%LABORERS LOCAL #43: $24k → 9%LABORERS LOCAL #177: $40k → 10%LABORERS LOCAL #43: $10k → 9%IOWA LECET: $50k → 10%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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.7M · 7 repeat orgs$210k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
4

Total granted

$1.7M
$198k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+35%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $11k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • LI
    LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LABORERS' LOCAL #43
    9× · 2017–2025 · $421k · revenue +121%
  • LI
    LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL 620
    3× · 2023–2025 · $257k · revenue +149% · 49% of their budget
  • LI
    LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
    7× · 2017–2023 · $250k · revenue +34%

Funded once

  • LA
    LABORERS AFL-CIO LOCAL UNION 362graduated
    one grant, 2017 · $70k · revenue +55%
  • LI
    LABORER'S INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH A
    one grant, 2017 · $67k · revenue +7%
  • IL
    IOWA LABORERS' EDUCATION AND TRAINING TRUST FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue +35%
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
Laborers International Union of North America Local 152

Labor union

—
2
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…

—
3
Laborers International Union of North America - Local 1076

The local is a nonprofit organization established to represent its members in wage and fringe benefits matters in the construction industry. the local's primary areas of jurisdiction are oakland and livingston counties.

—
4
Laborers International Union of State of Mi

Collective bargaining and representation

—
5
Laborers International Union of North America Local Union 44

Provide benefits of union membership

—
6
Laborers' International Union of North America Local No 5

Labor union

—
7
Laborers International Union of Na Great Plains Laborers' District Council

Provide assistance to member locals with all union related activities.

—
8
Laborers' International Union of North America

To improve working conditions and living standards of members through collective bargaining, education, training, and employee benefits.

—
9
Laborers' Int'l Union of North America District Council of Chicago

To promote unity of action in dealing with employers and to coordinate and consolidate the activities of its various affiliated local unions so they can work in a harmonious and united way.

—
10
Laborers International Union of North America Local 872

To provide continuous employment, collectively bargain for improvement of working conditions and wages.

—
11
Laborers International Union of Na Sewer and Tunnel Miners Union Local 2

Secure fair compensation and working conditions for all members.

—
12
Laborers International Union of North America

Represents its members when dealing with the state of Delaware and other employment related matters.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Laborers' International Union of North America Laborers' Local #43; the most unlike its peers is Iowa Laborers' Education and Training Trust Fund. 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
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

LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LABORERS' LOCAL #43: $421,138 · OtherLABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LABORERS' LOCAL #43CONSTRUCTION AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LIUNA LOCAL #177: $387,138 · OtherCONSTRUCTION AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LIUNA LOCAL #177LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL 620: $257,138 · OtherLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL 620LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA: $250,000 · OtherLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICALABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL #165: $150,000 · OtherLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL #165LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL #751: $127,138 · OtherLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL #751IOWA LABORERS' EMPLOYERS COOPERATION & EDUCATION TRUST: $100,000 · OtherLABORERS AFL-CIO LOCAL UNION 362: $70,000 · OtherLABORER'S INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH A: $67,000 · Other+2 more: $61,450 · OtherMIDWEST REGION LABORERS VETERANS COMMITTEE: $11,300 · Public Benefit
Other$1,891,002Public Benefit$11,300

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LABORERS' LOCAL #43: $421,138 over 9y, 7.1% of budgetCONSTRUCTION AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LIUNA LOCAL #177: $387,138 over 7y, 3.2% of budgetLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL 620: $257,138 over 3y, 49% of budgetLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA: $250,000 over 7y, 4.0% of budgetLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL #165: $150,000 over 2y, 7.0% of budgetLABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL #751: $127,138 over 2y, 7.1% of budgetIOWA LABORERS' EMPLOYERS COOPERATION & EDUCATION TRUST: $100,000 over 2y, 4.1% of budgetLABORERS AFL-CIO LOCAL UNION 362: $70,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetLABORER'S INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH A: $67,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetIOWA LABORERS' EDUCATION AND TRAINING TRUST FUND: $50,000 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetMIDWEST REGION LABORERS VETERANS COMMITTEE: $11,300 over 1y, 3.5% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Laborers International Union of Na Great Plains Laborers' District Council funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Laborers International Union of Na Great Plains Laborers' District Council. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 12 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 International Union of Na Great Plains Laborers' District Council’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