· Public charity
Northern California District Council of Laborers
To establish central representative bodies; to unite members for the purpose of improving economic advantages and to promote the education and social awareness of its membership.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 42% of NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS’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 3 grants below total $67,500 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $87,103 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $19,603 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 · $8k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| YES ON SOUTH PLACER COUNTY MEAS B | $50,000 |
| LABORERS CARE | $10,000 |
| SHOOT FOR A CURE | $7,500 |
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 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 98% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +65% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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, 26% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k 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 Foundation4× · 2017–2021 · $94k · revenue +80%
- SBSTATE BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA2× · 2020–2021 · $60k · revenue +65%
- JWJOHN WILLIAM HALE FOUNDATION3× · 2019–2024 · $30k · revenue +42%
Funded once
- CFCalifornians for Safe Reliable Infrastructureone grant, 2018 · $400k · revenue -96%
- NONO ON PROP 22 SPONSORED BY LABOR ORGone grant, 2020 · $150k
- TLThe Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalitionone grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +13%
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.
To promote the use of union building trades in construction projects in the bay area.
To support policies and ballot measures to support employment reform.
To support or oppose ballot measures in California.
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…
To benefit local trade unions and their members through education and promotion of union labor to the public.
The council coordinated the efforts of affiliated local unions and assisted their organizations work, bettering the working conditions of their members.
Operation of laborers local union for the benefit of its members.
The Labor Council offers an avenue for local unions to come together as one group.
Influence the 2018 election.
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.
Oppose payroll expense tax ballot measure in the city and county of san francisco
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Dolores C Huerta Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Clean Safe & Affordable Energy Yes on a. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 of the 24 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 Californians for Safe Reliable Infrastructure ↗
- Who funds The Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition ↗
- Who funds Northern California Laborers Scholarship Foundation ↗
- Who funds STATE BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds JOHN WILLIAM HALE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SHOOT FOR A CURE ↗
- Who funds DOLORES C HUERTA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Strengthen Our Seawall for Earthquakes and Disasters Yes on Prop A ↗
- Who funds TERENCE J O'SULLIVAN LIUNA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GREAT PLAINS LIFE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Clean Safe & Affordable Energy Yes on A ↗
- Who funds A PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Rebuild City College Yes on A ↗
- Who funds Laborers International Union of North America Local No 261 ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Great Lakes Region Organizing Committee · Northern California Carpenters Regional Council
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Northern California District Council of Laborers 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Northern California District Council of Laborers?
Find your warmest path to Northern California District Council of Laborers 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.