A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 41% of PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES LABOR- MANAGEMENT COOPERATION INITIATIVE’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.

02FY2025 · 26 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 26 grants below total $3,642,445 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $4,213,303 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $570,858 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 · FY2025

$10k–50k9 grants · $277k
$50k–250k12 grants · $1.3M
$250k+5 grants · $2.1M

$97,086

Median grant

States reached

$16M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
NATIONAL STEEL PAINTING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION	$600,000
ARCHITECTURAL GLASS AND METAL CERTIFICATION COUNCIL	$403,971
NATIONAL ARCHITECTURAL GLASS AND METAL ASSOCIATION	$400,000
IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL 77 LABOR MANAGEMENT FUND	$327,685
FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE UPPER MIDWEST	$320,000
FTI OF NEW ENGLAND	$152,640
FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE GREAT LAKES	$150,000
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GLAZING AND ARCHITECTURAL METAL INDUSTRY LMCC	$150,000
FTI OF MARYLAND VIRGINIA	$146,742
FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF ARIZONA JATC	$111,800
FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION	$104,783
FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF WEST VIRGINIA	$100,000
FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF DC 91	$97,086
IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL 4	$88,393
IUPAT DISTRICT COUNCIL 3 TRAINING FUND	$74,455

02The need

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 56% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

Which US states your grants reach

Grants abroad, by region — $571k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

North America (Canada and Mexico)$571k · 100% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: PFTI TRAINING FACILITY, TRAINING & WORKER RESPIRATORY SAFETY · UNITIZED MOCK-UP WALL · TRAINING PROGRAM W/ EQUIPMENT

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$17M · 36 repeat orgs$1.5M to everyone else

36 repeat relationships — 24 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$17M

$1.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+10%

+15%

Still filing today

92%

80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $145k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EducationEmploymentCommunity ImprovementOther

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

AG
ARCHITECTURAL GLASS AND METAL CERTIFICATION COUNCIL
7× · 2018–2025 · $2.9M · revenue ×12 · 70% of their budget
FT
FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF DISTRICT COUNCIL 36 JOINT APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING TF
5× · 2021–2025 · $634k · revenue +21%
DC
DISTRICT COUNCIL 5 APPRENTICESHIP & TRAINING TRUST FUND
6× · 2020–2025 · $631k · revenue +6%

Funded once

IU
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL 50
one grant, 2024 · $300k · revenue 0%
DC
DISTRICT COUNCIL 50 JOINT APPRENTICESHIP & TRAINING FUNDgraduated
one grant, 2022 · $240k · revenue +27%
FI
FCA INTERNATIONAL
one grant, 2017 · $190k · revenue -63%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Finishing Trades Institute of District Council 10

Training and education of apprentices and journeymen in painting, glazing and allied trades industry.

Education

Iupat District Council 81 Joint Apprenticeship and Training Trust

Apprenticeship and training program

Education

Iupat - Finishing Trades Institute

The purpose of the fti is to establish and maintain joint apprenticeship and vocational training, education and retraining programs and to ensure that all training and apprenticeship programs throughout the united states and canada are…

—

Plastering & Spray Fireproofing Contractors of Greater New York Inc

The organization monitors apprenticeship programs, promotes safety on the job and resolves labor disagreements between labor and management through meetings and negotiations with both parties.

—

International Union of Painters and Allied Trades Local No 10

The organization is a labor union and operates a dispatch hall for union painters.

—

International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 77

The objective of the council is the establishment of a central representative body having jurisdiction in all matters relating to the trade in this district and to bring harmony and unity among the local unions.

—

Finishing Contractors Association of Chicago

Promote and improve the business conditions of the painting and drywall industry in the Chicago metropolitan area.

Community Improvement

Intl Union of Painters & Allied Trades District Council No 5

To organize workers and to improve their lives and livelihoods and the welfare of their families through the benefits of collective bargaining, and promote harmony and unity between local unions in the district.

—

Finishing Trades Institute of Northern California and Nevada Trust

To promote the working conditions of members by providing training to apprentices and journeymen in the skilled crafts of floor covering, painting, taping, and glazing.

Education

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades District Council 11

Provide oversight and centralized management to all local unions within the district council.

—

Carpenters and Joiners Apprenticeship and Journeymen Training Trust Fund

Apprenticeship and journeymen training fund

Employment

Local 67 Training Program Trust

This is a multiemployer collectively bargained plan that provides training and education for apprentices and journeyman ironworkers.

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Finishing Trades Institute of District Council 36 Joint Apprenticeship Training Tf and the most unlike its peers is District Council No 9 Scholarship Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 26 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 13% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/55

the rest of the field

13%

240,396/1,819,510

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

04the grantee network

51 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. 51 of the 58 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

50/51

Grantees still filing

36/51

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$7,482,138Education$6,208,428Employment$4,212,483Community Improvement$480,000

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.

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.

Iupat - Finishing Trades InstituteMD24.2× affinity9 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Iupat - Finishing Trades Institute

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 Painters and Allied Trades Labor- Management Cooperation Initiative 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

6get no government money at all

7report 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

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.

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 camps

funders cluster by geography, not ideology

By state

where grant money is based, and what stays home

State money flows

the interactive map of money crossing state lines