Skip to content
Nuclear Power Labor Management Cooperation Committee Trust at a glance

· Public charity

Nuclear Power Labor Management Cooperation Committee Trust

The trust will explore ways to increase productivity, develop innovative skills-upgrading programs, recruit new workers for the construction and operation of nuclear facilities, and develop other special programs for the benefit of the nuclear industry and its workforce.

$888k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$500k
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Employment$5.6MPhilanthropy$210kHealth$195kScience & Tech$131kCrime & Legal$125kMembership Benefit$115kPublic Benefit$28kEnvironment$25kOther$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $38k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $350k
  • $250k+1 grant · $500k
$100,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$4.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TRADESFUTURES$500,000
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT$200,000
NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE$100,000
DIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE$50,000
NCCMP$25,000
CENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT$12,500
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 (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE: $25k → 14%DIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $50k → 13%BURKE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE: $125k → 13%IBEW 1579: $15k → 18%BURKE COUNTY HEALTH FOUNDATION: $20k → 22%HEART 911: $8k → 16%TOYS FOR TOTS: $40k → 7%UNITED WAY: $20k → 9%WREATHS ACROSS AMERICA: $8k → 16%TRADESFUTURE: $1.6M → 14%DIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $50k → 13%GOLDEN HARVEST FOOD BANK: $20k → 18%TOYS FOR TOTS: $40k → 7%UNITED WAY: $20k → 9%WREATHS ACROSS AMERICA: $8k → 16%TRADESFUTURE: $1.1M → 14%DIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $25k → 13%MARINE TOYS FOR TOTS: $30k → 7%UNITED WAY: $20k → 9%WEATHS ACROSS AMERICA: $8k → 16%TRADESFUTURE: $800k → 14%DIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $25k → 13%MARINE TOYS FOR TOTS: $20k → 7%UNITED WAY: $20k → 9%WREATHS ACROSS AMERICA: $5k → 16%CENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT: $625k → 14%DIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $25k → 13%TRADESFUTURES: $500k → 14%CENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT: $425k → 14%BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT: $200k → 14%BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT: $200k → 14%BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT: $150k → 14%NABTU: $100k → 14%NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE: $100k → 14%NCCMP: $25k → 14%CENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT: $25k → 14%CENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT: $13k → 14%HORTONS KIDS: $5k → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
NJ
CA
VA
NC
DC
GA
FL
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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.4M · 7 repeat orgs$1.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +18% since the first grant, against +5% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
8

Total granted

$5.4M
$999k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+18%
+5%

Still filing today

100%
88%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Community ImprovementPhilanthropyHealthEmploymentEducationPublic BenefitOther
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

  • BA
    BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT AFL-CIO
    4× · 2022–2025 · $650k · revenue +19%
  • MT
    MARINE TOYS FOR TOTS FOUNDATION
    4× · 2021–2024 · $130k · revenue +21%
  • NE
    NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE INC
    2× · 2021–2025 · $125k · revenue +18%

Funded once

  • T
    TRADESFUTURESgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $800k · revenue +57% · 30% of their budget
  • BC
    BURKE COUNTY COMMITTEE OF 100 INC
    one grant, 2022 · $125k
  • GH
    GOLDEN HARVEST FOOD BANK INCgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $20k · revenue +25%
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
National Maintenance Agreement Labor- Management Policy Committee

The national maintenance agreements policy committee negotiates and administers the national maintenance agreements, a series of collective bargaining agreements utilized by more than 1,700 industrial contractors who employ members of…

—
2
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 624

The organization is a trade union that represents operating engineers, who work as heavy equipment operators, mechanics,and surveyors in the construction industry, and stationary engineers, who work in operations and maintenance in…

—
3
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 825ABCDRRH

The work of the union, as the representative of its members, is to provide for the continuous employment of labor, to bring about stable conditions in the industry, and to establish necessary procedures for resolutions of disputes between…

—
4
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

Founded in 1889, the national association of regulatory utility commisioners (naruc) is a non-profit organization dedicated to representing the state public service commisions who regulate the utilities that provide essential services such…

—
5
American Federal Goverment Employees Council 238

Representation of u.s. epa bargaining unit employees.

—
6
North American Electric Reliability Corp

The north american electric reliability corporation (nerc) is a not-for-profit international regulatory authority whose mission is to assure the effective and efficient reduction of risks to the reliability and security of the grid.

Community Improvement
7
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 369

Iuoe is a trade union who represents operating engineers and is dedicated to the common interests of its members by ensuring protections of prevailing wages on public projects and alleviating healthcare costs through coalition building.…

—
8
Electrical Welfare Trust Fund

To provide accident, hospital, medical, surgical, dental, prescription, vision, disability, employee assistance, and death benefits for eligible participants as agreed upon by the national electrical contractors association - washington,…

—
9
1199SEIU Labor Management Initiatives in

The fund was established to improve labor-mangement relationships and to achieve better working conditions for employees, a more qualified and satisfied workforce and to maximize job security.

—
10
National Electrical Contractors Assoc Washington Dc Chapter

To promote, protect and uphold the common interests of the electrical contracting industry.

—
11
National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans

The nccmp is the only national organization devoted exclusively to protecting the interests of the unions and the job-creating employers of america that jointly sponsor multiemployer retirement and welfare plans and the more than 20…

—
12
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 342

Labor union representing the electrical worker force

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Nccmp Research and Education Corporation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Horton's Kids Inc. 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

17 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/17
Grantees still filing
8/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TVA PROJECT LABOR-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION COMMITTEE TRUST: $3,200,000 · Community ImprovementTVA PROJECT LABOR-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION COMMITTEE TRUS…+1 more: $6,000 · Community ImprovementCENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT: $1,087,500 · EmploymentCENTER FOR MILITAR…BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT AFL-CIO: $650,000 · OtherBUILDING AND CON…BURKE COUNTY COMMITTEE OF 100 INC: $125,000 · OtherBURKE COUNTY COM…NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE INC: $125,000 · OtherNUCLEAR ENERGY I…+4 more: $65,000 · Other+4 moreTRADESFUTURES: $800,000 · EducationTRADESFUTURESMARINE TOYS FOR TOTS FOUNDATION: $130,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY WORLDWIDE: $80,000 · PhilanthropyHealing Emergency Aid Response Team 911: $7,500 · PhilanthropyDIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOUNDATION INC: $175,000 · HealthBURKE COUNTY HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 · HealthWreaths Across America: $27,500 · Public Benefit
Community Improvement$3,206,000Employment$1,087,500Other$965,000Education$800,000Philanthropy$217,500Health$195,000Public Benefit$27,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT: $1,087,500 over 4y, 17% of budgetTRADESFUTURES: $800,000 over 1y, 30% of budgetBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT AFL-CIO: $650,000 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetDIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOUNDATION INC: $175,000 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetMARINE TOYS FOR TOTS FOUNDATION: $130,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE INC: $125,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED WAY WORLDWIDE: $80,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetWreaths Across America: $27,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetGOLDEN HARVEST FOOD BANK INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBURKE COUNTY HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetINTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS L U #1579: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHealing Emergency Aid Response Team 911: $7,500 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetNorth American Young Generation in Nuclear Inc: $6,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetHORTON'S KIDS INC: $5,000 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Nuclear Power Labor Management Cooperation Committee Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nuclear Power Labor Management Cooperation Committee Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 17 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Nuclear Power Labor Management Cooperation Committee’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