Skip to content
Northern California District Council of Laborers at a glance

· 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.

$87k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Community Improvement$433kPublic Benefit$313kEmployment$177kEducation$134kHuman Services$30kPublic Safety & Disaster$30kHealth$28kPhilanthropy$20kOther$0
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $67,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $87,103 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $19,603 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 · $8k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$61M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
YES ON SOUTH PLACER COUNTY MEAS B$50,000
LABORERS CARE$10,000
SHOOT FOR A CURE$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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%YES ON MEASURE W: $10k → 8%SHOOT FOR A CURE: $10k → 9%YES ON PROP B 2020: $30k → 10%A Philip Randolph Institute: $10k → 10%NO ON PROP 22 SPONSORED BY LABOR ORG: $150k → 12%YES ON SOUTH PLACER COUNTY MEAS B: $50k → 18%FRIENDS OF MERCED COLLEGE FOR YES ON J: $20k → 19%LIUNA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%Laborers CARE: $10k → 16%GREAT PLAINS LIFE FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%YES ON MEASURE BB: $10k → 8%SHOOT FOR A CURE: $8k → 9%REBUILD CITY COLLEGE YES ON A: $10k → 10%PROGRESS SAN FRANCISCO: $50k → 10%State Bldg & Constr Trades Council of CA: $40k → 12%LABORERS CARE: $10k → 16%SHOOT FOR A CURE: $11k → 9%PSW REG ORGANIZING COALITION: $100k → 10%YES ON A: $10k → 10%State Bldg & Constr Trades Council of CA: $20k → 12%LABORERS CARE: $10k → 16%NO CALIFORNIA SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION: $50k → 10%YES ON D: $10k → 10%YES ON PROP 69: $400k → 12%NO CALIFORNIA SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION: $20k → 10%LABORERS LOCAL 261: $7k → 10%YES ON PROP A: $13k → 12%NO CALIFORNIA SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION: $16k → 10%FRIENDS OF CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION YES ON J: $10k → 12%NO CALIFORNIA SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION: $8k → 10%CITIZENS FOR OUTSTANDING HIGH SCHOOLS YES ON L: $10k → 12%ALLIANCE FOR JOBS AND SUSTAINABLE GROWTH: $8k → 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.

20%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$232k · 5 repeat orgs$952k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +65% since the first grant, against 0% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
18

Total granted

$232k
$902k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+65%
0%

Still filing today

80%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 26% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’24
Community ImprovementHealthEmploymentEducationPhilanthropyPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • NC
    Northern California Laborers Scholarship Foundation
    4× · 2017–2021 · $94k · revenue +80%
  • SB
    STATE BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
    2× · 2020–2021 · $60k · revenue +65%
  • JW
    JOHN WILLIAM HALE FOUNDATION
    3× · 2019–2024 · $30k · revenue +42%

Funded once

  • CF
    Californians for Safe Reliable Infrastructure
    one grant, 2018 · $400k · revenue -96%
  • NO
    NO ON PROP 22 SPONSORED BY LABOR ORG
    one grant, 2020 · $150k
  • TL
    The Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +13%
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
Northern Ca Construction Workers Unity Action Corporation

To promote the use of union building trades in construction projects in the bay area.

Employment
2
Californians for Fair Pay and Employer Accountability

To support policies and ballot measures to support employment reform.

—
3
Governor Newsoms Ballot Measure Committee

To support or oppose ballot measures in California.

—
4
Contra Costa Labor Council Afl-Cio

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…

—
5
Sacramento Central Labor Council

To benefit local trade unions and their members through education and promotion of union labor to the public.

—
6
California Federation of Teachers Disaster Relief Fund
Membership Benefit
7
California State Council of Service Employees

The council coordinated the efforts of affiliated local unions and assisted their organizations work, bettering the working conditions of their members.

—
8
Construction and Public Employees Liuna Local #177

Operation of laborers local union for the benefit of its members.

—
9
San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council Afl-Cio

The Labor Council offers an avenue for local unions to come together as one group.

—
10
Affordable Housing Now See Schedule O for Full Name

Influence the 2018 election.

—
11
California Labor Federation Afl-Cio

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.

—
12
Save San Francisco Small Businesses - No On F

Oppose payroll expense tax ballot measure in the city and county of san francisco

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Dolores C Huerta Foundation; 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.
04the grantee network

14 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. 14 of the 24 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/14
Grantees still filing
6/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NO ON PROP 22 SPONSORED BY LABOR ORG: $150,000 · OtherNO ON PROP 22 SPONSORED BY LABOR ORGSTATE BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA: $60,000 · OtherSTATE BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF…PROGRESS SAN FRANCISCO: $50,000 · OtherPROGRESS SAN FRANCISCOYES ON SOUTH PLACER COUNTY MEAS B: $50,000 · OtherYES ON SOUTH PLACER COUNTY MEAS BYES ON PROP B 2020: $30,000 · OtherYES ON PROP B 2020Strengthen Our Seawall for Earthquakes and Disasters Yes on Prop A: $22,500 · OtherTERENCE J O'SULLIVAN LIUNA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $20,000 · OtherCITIZENS FOR OUTSTANDING HIGH SCHOOLS YES ON L: $20,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF MERCED COLLEGE FOR YES ON J: $20,000 · Other+8 more: $74,460 · Other+8 moreCalifornians for Safe Reliable Infrastructure: $400,000 · Community ImprovementCalifornians for Safe Reliable Infrastru…DOLORES C HUERTA FOUNDATION: $25,000 · Community ImprovementDOLORES C HUERTA FOUNDATIONThe Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition: $100,000 · EmploymentThe Labor…Northern California Laborers Scholarship Foundation: $94,000 · EducationNorthern …JOHN WILLIAM HALE FOUNDATION: $30,000 · Public Safety & DisasterSHOOT FOR A CURE: $27,645 · HealthGREAT PLAINS LIFE FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · Philanthropy
Other$496,960Community Improvement$425,000Employment$100,000Education$94,000Public Safety & Disaster$30,000Health$27,645Philanthropy$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 budgetThe Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition: $100,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetNorthern California Laborers Scholarship Foundation: $94,000 over 4y, 15% of budgetSTATE BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA: $60,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetJOHN WILLIAM HALE FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 3y, 3.9% of budgetSHOOT FOR A CURE: $27,645 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetDOLORES C HUERTA FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetStrengthen Our Seawall for Earthquakes and Disasters Yes on Prop A: $22,500 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetTERENCE J O'SULLIVAN LIUNA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetClean Safe & Affordable Energy Yes on A: $10,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetA PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE: $10,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetRebuild City College Yes on A: $10,000 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetGREAT PLAINS LIFE FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetLaborers International Union of North America Local No 261: $6,960 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.

Great Lakes Region Or…Northern California C…
Great Lakes Region Organizing CommitteeIL13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Great Lakes Region Organizing Committee · Northern California Carpenters Regional Council

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 Northern California District Council of Laborers funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Northern California District Council of Laborers. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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
    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 · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    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.

    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 24 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 Northern California District Council of Laborers’ 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