Skip to content
Painters District Council No 30 Labor Management Industry Development Fund at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Painters District Council No 30 Labor Management Industry Development Fund

To advance the painting, decorating, drywall and glazing finishing industries through the development and implementation of strategic proactive programming designed to engage and address the dynamic needs and unique charateristics of the construction industry throughout the geographical jurisdiction of painters district council no.

$91k
Granted FY2026still arriving
3
Grants FY2026still arriving
2
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Philanthropy$89kYouth Development$77kEmployment$50kPublic Benefit$50kRecreation & Sports$43kCivil Rights$11kAnimals$8kFood & Nutrition$6kOther$0
02FY2026 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $34,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $90,521 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $56,521 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 · FY2026

  • Under $10k1 grant · $9k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $25k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION LABOR-MANAGEMENT COUNCIL INC$15,000
THREE FIRES COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA$10,000
UNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE$9,000
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 (FY17–26) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 77% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%UNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE: $13k → 10%COON CREEK HUNT CLUB: $8k → 6%THREE FIRES COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: $10k → 8%Democratic Party of Illinois: $22k → 11%Illinois Senate Democratic Victory Fund: $22k → 14%TRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION LABOR-MANAGEMENT COUNCIL INC: $15k → 14%Painters and Allied Trades for Children's Hope Foundation: $27k → 6%UNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE: $9k → 10%THREE FIRES COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: $10k → 8%Illinois Democratic Majority: $22k → 11%PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES FOR CHILDREN'S HOPE FOUNDATION: $25k → 6%UNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE: $9k → 10%THREE FIRES COUNCLI BSA: $5k → 8%ILLINOIS CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $6k → 11%IUPAT FIDR: $10k → 6%UNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE: $8k → 10%TRI-COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT FUND: $50k → 8%ILLINOIS AFL-CIO: $6k → 11%PATCH FOUNDATION: $9k → 6%UNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE: $7k → 10%PDC No 30 LMIDF PAC Fund: $44k → 8%IUPAT GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT: $7k → 6%UNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE: $6k → 10%PDC NO 30 LMIDF PAC FUND: $23k → 8%IUPAT Chariman's Club: $6k → 6%PDC NO 30 LMIDF PAC FUND: $22k → 8%REULAND FOOD SERVICE: $6k → 8%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 100% of Painters District Council No 30 Labor Management Industry Development Fund’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 66% of the giving stays in IL; by stated purpose, 0%.

Painters District Council No 30 Labor Management Industry Development Fundlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

54%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$222k · 4 repeat orgs$189k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2026, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
13

Total granted

$222k
$174k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+3%

Still filing today

75%
23%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’24’25’26
EnvironmentPhilanthropyCommunity ImprovementYouth DevelopmentHuman ServicesOther
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

  • PN
    PDC No 30 LMIDF PAC Fund
    3× · 2017–2019 · $89k
  • PA
    PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES FOR CHILDREN'S HOPE FOUNDATION
    3× · 2017–2022 · $61k · revenue +14%
  • US
    UNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE
    6× · 2019–2026 · $52k · revenue -4%

Funded once

  • TD
    TRI-COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT FUND
    one grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue +3%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $22k
  • DP
    DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF ILLINOIS
    one grant, 2017 · $22k
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
05the grantee network

7 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 7 of the 18 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
3/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PDC No 30 LMIDF PAC Fund: $89,200 · OtherPDC No 30 LMIDF PAC FundIndividual grant recipient: $21,600 · OtherIndividual grant recipientDEMOCRATIC PARTY OF ILLINOIS: $21,600 · OtherDEMOCRATIC PARTY OF ILLINOISIllinois Senate Democratic Victory Fund: $21,600 · OtherIllinois Senate Democratic Victory FundTRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION LABOR-MANAGEMENT COUNCIL INC: $15,000 · OtherTRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION LABOR-MANAGEMENT COUNCIL INCIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherCOON CREEK HUNT CLUB: $8,150 · Other+5 more: $29,834 · Other+5 morePAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES FOR CHILDREN'S HOPE FOUNDATION: $61,195 · PhilanthropyPAINTERS AND ALL…UNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE: $51,950 · EnvironmentUNION SPORTSMEN…Illinois Conservation Foundation: $5,500 · EnvironmentIllinois Conser…TRI-COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT FUND: $50,000 · Community ImprovementTRI-COUNCIL D…THREE FIRES COUNCIL INC BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA #127: $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentEQUALITY ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: $5,450 · Human Services
Other$216,984Philanthropy$61,195Environment$57,450Community Improvement$50,000Youth Development$20,000Human Services$5,450

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES FOR CHILDREN'S HOPE FOUNDATION: $61,195 over 3y, 7.0% of budgetUNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE: $51,950 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetTHREE FIRES COUNCIL INC BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA #127: $20,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetIllinois Conservation Foundation: $5,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetEQUALITY ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: $5,450 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

  • Who funds PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES FOR CHILDREN'S HOPE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds UNION SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds TRI-COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT FUND ↗
  • Who funds THREE FIRES COUNCIL INC BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA #127 ↗
  • Who funds TRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION LABOR-MANAGEMENT COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds Illinois Conservation Foundation ↗
  • Who funds EQUALITY ILLINOIS INSTITUTE ↗

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.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Painters District Council No 30 Labor Management Industry Development Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Painters District Council No 30 Labor Management Industry Development Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%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
    1get 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
    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 Painters District Council No 30 Labor Management Industry Development Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Painters District Council No 30 Labor Management Industry Development Fund 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 18 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 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Painters District Council No 30 Labor Management Industry Development’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