Skip to content
Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work Inc at a glance

· Public charity

Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work Inc

Educate the public, legislators, and regulatory entities about existing and proposed laws and policies in Massachusetts that impact the business climate and economic opportunities of independent drivers to earn income in the transporation network industries in a manner that is consistent with the antitrust laws

$9.9M
Granted FY2022
5
Grants FY2022
2
States reached
$9.8M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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, FY2021 to 2022.

Environment$9.8MPublic Benefit$100kHuman Services$25kArts & Culture$20kCommunity Improvement$15kYouth Development$10k
02FY2022 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
  • $250k+1 grant · $9.8M
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$38k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Clean Air Now Coalition$9,754,541
Advanced Technology Alliance$100,000
St Patrick's Committee of Holyoke Inc$10,000
Boston While Black$10,000
Hyde Park Main Streets$7,500
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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–21, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts: $25k → 16%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 field
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 8 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
4/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Clean Air Now Coalition: $9,754,541 · OtherClean Air Now Coalition+1 more: $10,000 · OtherAdvanced Technology Alliance: $100,000 · Public BenefitURBAN LEAGUE OF EASTERN MASSCHUSETTS INC: $25,000 · Human ServicesHAITIAN AMERICAN BUSINESS EXPO INC: $7,500 · Community ImprovementHYDE PARK MAIN STREETS INC: $7,500 · Community ImprovementSAINT PATRICK'S PARADE COMMITTEE OF HOLYOKE INC: $10,000 · Arts & CultureBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BOSTON INC: $10,000 · Youth Development
Other$9,764,541Public Benefit$100,000Human Services$25,000Community Improvement$15,000Arts & Culture$10,000Youth Development$10,000

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 budgetClean Air Now Coalition: $9,754,541 over 1y, 28% of budgetAdvanced Technology Alliance: $100,000 over 1y, 7.8% of budgetURBAN LEAGUE OF EASTERN MASSCHUSETTS INC: $25,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetSAINT PATRICK'S PARADE COMMITTEE OF HOLYOKE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BOSTON INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHAITIAN AMERICAN BUSINESS EXPO INC: $7,500 over 1y, 10% of budgetHYDE PARK MAIN STREETS INC: $7,500 over 1y, 5.7% 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 Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get 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 · 0–30%
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 8 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $1k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2022, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work’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