· Public charity
Laborers International Union of North America Local No 261
The local union engages in collective bargaining, grievance representation and benefits administration on behalf of its membership.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 44% of Laborers International Union of North America Local No 261’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 2 grants below total $32,700 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $143,079 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $110,379 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 · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $10k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $23k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NO CAL LABORERS SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION | $23,000 |
| SAN MATEO COUNTY CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL | $9,700 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 58% 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.
6 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.
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 FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- NCNorthern California Laborers Scholarship Foundation8× · 2017–2024 · $154k · revenue +80%
- BCBuilding & Construction Trades Council San Mateo County3× · 2017–2019 · $29k · revenue +15%
- SFSan Francisco Labor Council3× · 2017–2022 · $29k · revenue +174%
Funded once
- OGOTHER GRANTS PAID BELOW 5000one grant, 2022 · $59k
- SBSF BLDG & CONST TRADES COUNCILgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $15k · revenue +62%
- APA PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTEgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +418%
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.
The mission of the North Bay Labor Council is to improve the lives of working families and to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our State and the Nation.
To benefit local trade unions and their members through education and promotion of union labor to the public.
The primary purposes of the organization are the study of economic and social conditions; the pursuit of policies aimed at effecting a more equal distribution of wealth; and the promotion of full employment.
The Labor Council offers an avenue for local unions to come together as one group.
To promote the use of union building trades in construction projects in the bay area.
The objectives of the philadelphia building trades council are to enlist the voluntary cooperation and support of every eligible local union to the end that wage scales and desirable working conditions may be established and maintained in…
The council is a federation of approximately 85 affiliated unions. the organizaton engages in a wide range of activities. the activities are designed to improve the lives of working families, to bring economic justice to the workplace, and…
The council was organized to promote the growth and development of all building and construction trades and organized labor within its jurisdiction.
to organize workers in the laborers international union of north America, afl-cio pacific southwest region through a coordinated program to maintain and improve employment opportunities for affiliated local union members and to recruit new…
Labor organization
To improve the lives of working families, bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our state and the nation.
Labor union
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Federation of Labor and the most unlike its peers is A Philip Randolph Institute. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 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. 8 of the 9 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 Northern California Laborers Scholarship Foundation ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO PARKS ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Building & Construction Trades Council San Mateo County ↗
- Who funds San Francisco Labor Council ↗
- Who funds American Federation of Labor ↗
- Who funds SF BLDG & CONST TRADES COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS MIKE QUEVEDO SR SCHOLARSHIP FUND ↗
- Who funds A PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE ↗
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Laborers International Union of North America Local No 261 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.