Skip to content
Laborers International Union of North America Local Union No 242 at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Laborers International Union of North America Local Union No 242

Serving the greater seattle area, the union is committed to working on behalf of their members with the main goal of making the quality of life better for them and their families.

$291k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$120k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Community Improvement$6.4MHousing & Shelter$1.5MEmployment$165kMembership Benefit$96kEducation$55kPublic Benefit$25kHealth$15kCivil Rights$13kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $244,100, the rows itemized in this filing. The $290,897 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $46,797 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 $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $68k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $170k
$13,100
Median grant
2
States reached
$28M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NW LABORERS UNITED TRAINING CENTER$120,000
NW LABORERS UNITED$50,000
W VERNIE REED MEMORIAL FUND$25,000
LABORERS LOCAL UNION 242 SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND$13,100
KEEP SEATTLE MOVING$10,000
NO ON 2117$10,000
TERENCE J O'SULLIVAN LIUNA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION$10,000
NORTHWEST DELEGATE FUND$6,000
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%TERENCE J O'SULLIVAN LIUNA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%LABORERS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $10k → 15%NORTHWEST DELEGATE FUND: $26k → 9%TERENCE J O'SULLIVAN LIUNA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%NORTHWEST DELEGATE FUND: $20k → 9%PUGET SOUND LABOR AGENCY: $12k → 9%PUGET SOUND LABOR AGENCY: $8k → 9%PUGET SOUND LABOR AGENCY: $6k → 9%NORTHWEST DELEGATE FUND: $6k → 9%NORTHWEST DELEGATE FUND: $6k → 9%NW LABORERS UNITED: $5.9M → 9%LOCAL 242 HOME DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $847k → 9%LOCAL 242 HOME DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $603k → 9%NW LABORERS UNITED: $246k → 9%NW Laborers United: $140k → 9%NW LABORERS UNITED TRAINING CENTER: $120k → 9%NW LABORERS UNITED: $95k → 9%NW LABORERS UNITED: $50k → 9%NW LABORERS UNITED: $30k → 9%W VERNIE REED MEMORIAL FUND: $25k → 9%NW LABORERS UNITED: $15k → 9%LABORERS LOCAL UNION 242 SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND: $13k → 9%W VERNIE REED MEMORIAL FUND: $10k → 9%ANEW: $10k → 9%HARBORVIEW HEALTH FOR ALL: $15k → 9%KEEP SEATTLE MOVING: $10k → 9%NORTHWEST DELEGATE FUND: $26k → 9%W VERNIE REED MEMORIAL FUND: $10k → 9%NORTHWEST DELEGATE FUND: $6k → 9%NORTHWEST DELEGATE FUND: $6k → 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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$8.1M · 6 repeat orgs$193k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
3

Total granted

$8.1M
$40k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
+764%

Still filing today

83%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 37% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $153k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementEducationOther
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

  • TL
    THE LABORERS NORTHWEST REGIONAL ORGANIZING COALITION
    7× · 2018–2024 · $96k · revenue +20%
  • WV
    W Vernie Reed Memorial Fund
    3× · 2021–2024 · $45k · revenue +95%
  • PS
    PUGET SOUND LABOR AGENCY AFL-CIO
    3× · 2018–2020 · $25k · revenue +80%

Funded once

  • HH
    Harborview Health for All
    one grant, 2020 · $15k
  • CF
    Citizens for Better Transportation
    one grant, 2019 · $15k
  • AA
    APPRENTICESHIP AND NONTRADITIONAL EMPLOYMENT FOR WOMENgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +181%
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

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

—
2
Afl-Cio Snohomish & Island County Labor Council

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

—
3
Laborers International Union of North America Local Union No 242

Serving the greater seattle area, the union is committed to working on behalf of their members with the main goal of making the quality of life better for them and their families.

—
4
Washington State Patrol Union Troopers Association

Collective bargaining for members

—
5
Laborers International Union of North America Local #165

Operation of local union.

—
6
Laborers International Union of North America

To promote and improve the working conditions, wage levels, and fringe benefits of the local's members.

—
7
Seiu Healthcare 1199NW Multi-Employer Training & Education Fund
Health
8
Washington State Labor Council Afl-Cio

To protect and strengthen the rights and conditions of working people and their families.

—
9
Laborers' International Union of North America Laborers' Local #43

Promote and protect the interests of the members of the local

—
10
The Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition

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…

Employment
11
Laborers International Union of North America Local 152

Labor union

—
12
Working Washington

We are workers, united across different industries to improve our working conditions and our lives. We come together as working people to build power through education, organizing, and enforcement. We work to raise and uphold standards in…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Nw Laborers United; the most unlike its peers is Citizens for Better Transportation. 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 13 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NW LABORERS UNITED: $6,425,291 · Community ImprovementNW LABORERS UNITEDLABORERS LOCAL 242 HOME DEVELOPMENT: $1,450,082 · OtherLABORERS LOCAL 242 HOME…THE LABORERS NORTHWEST REGIONAL ORGANIZING COALITION: $96,000 · OtherTHE LABORERS NORTHWEST …+9 more: $173,368 · Other+9 moreNW LABORERS UNITED TRAINING CENTER: $120,000 · Education
Community Improvement$6,425,291Other$1,719,450Education$120,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNW LABORERS UNITED: $6,425,291 over 7y, 100% of budgetLABORERS LOCAL 242 HOME DEVELOPMENT: $1,450,082 over 2y, 100% of budgetNW LABORERS UNITED TRAINING CENTER: $120,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetTHE LABORERS NORTHWEST REGIONAL ORGANIZING COALITION: $96,000 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetW Vernie Reed Memorial Fund: $45,000 over 3y, 7.2% of budgetTERENCE J O'SULLIVAN LIUNA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetPUGET SOUND LABOR AGENCY AFL-CIO: $25,268 over 3y, 6.1% of budgetAPPRENTICESHIP AND NONTRADITIONAL EMPLOYMENT FOR WOMEN: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNo on 2117 Committee: $10,000 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.

Seattle Foundation
Seattle FoundationWA12.9× 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 Laborers International Union of North America Local Union No 242 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Laborers International Union of North America Local Union No 242. 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%4%8%11%15%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 · 0–15%
    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 13 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 Laborers International Union of North America Local Union No 242’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