Skip to content
Pharmaceutical Industry Labor-Management Management Association at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Pharmaceutical Industry Labor-Management Management Association

The unions and companies of the pharmaceutical industry labor-management association recognize that a strong domestic pharmaceutical industry providing innovative, affordable medicines is vital to the american people and the nation.

$109k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$25k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Human Services$500kCivil Rights$131kEmployment$92kHealth$81kMembership Benefit$60kPublic Benefit$48kEducation$33kArts & Culture$8k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $77,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $108,650 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $31,150 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.
$15,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$292k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
A PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE$25,000
The Larc Norcross School$15,000
CMRAVE$15,000
Diabetes Research Institute$12,500
NABTU Conference$10,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%PA AFL-CIO: $6k → 12%NEW YORKERS AGAINST CORRUPTION: $10k → 14%THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CLUB: $13k → 14%DIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $23k → 13%The Larc Norcross School: $15k → 12%MDDC AFL-CIO: $7k → 6%NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CLUB: $7k → 14%Diabetes Research Institute: $18k → 13%MARYLAND STATE AND DC AFL-CIO: $7k → 6%The National Democratic Club: $7k → 14%Diabetes Research Institute: $13k → 13%NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CLUB: $6k → 14%LABOR OF LOVE: $10k → 13%NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CLUB: $6k → 14%LABOR OF LOVE: $10k → 13%A PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE: $25k → 14%LABOR OF LOVE: $8k → 13%A PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE: $20k → 14%A PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE: $20k → 14%A PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE: $15k → 14%A PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE: $15k → 14%CMRAVE: $15k → 14%A PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE: $15k → 14%LCLAA: $15k → 14%CMRAVE: $12k → 14%CMRAVE: $11k → 14%NABTU CONFERENCE FUND: $10k → 14%NABTU Conference: $10k → 14%NABTU CONFERENCE FUND: $10k → 14%NABTU CONFERENCE FUND: $10k → 14%NCCMP: $10k → 14%NABTU Conference: $10k → 14%CMRAVE: $10k → 14%NABTU CONFERENCE: $10k → 14%CMRAVE: $8k → 14%NCCMP: $8k → 14%LCLAA: $8k → 14%SMWI SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $6k → 14%SMWI SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $6k → 14%SMWI SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $6k → 14%VoteVets Action Fund Inc: $500k → 14%CMRAVE: $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.
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.

41%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$393k · 8 repeat orgs$560k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +32% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
6

Total granted

$393k
$545k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+32%
+26%

Still filing today

88%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’22’23’24
EducationHealthEmploymentCivil RightsOther
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

  • AP
    A PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE
    8× · 2017–2024 · $110k · revenue +365%
  • DR
    DIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOUNDATION INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $81k · revenue +32%
  • CF
    CENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT
    8× · 2017–2024 · $61k · revenue +65%

Funded once

  • VA
    VOTEVETS ACTION FUND INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $500k · revenue +234%
  • LC
    LABOR COUNCIL FOR LATIN AMERICAN ADVANCEMENT
    one grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue -2%
  • NY
    NEW YORKERS AGAINST CORRUPTION
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
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
Laborers' Int'l Union of North America District Council of Chicago

To promote unity of action in dealing with employers and to coordinate and consolidate the activities of its various affiliated local unions so they can work in a harmonious and united way.

—
3
Metropolitan Washington Council Afl-Cio

The metropolitan washington council's mission is to organize in the community in an effort to promote social justice for all working people through the uniting of the labor movement and mobilizing the local community.

—
4
International Association of Sheet Metal Air Rail and Transportation Workers

To ensure a cooperative effort directed to fully develop and demonstrate the possibilities of workers in building trades, railroad, production, bus and mass transit and shipyard industries of the united states and canada and to protect…

Employment
5
Eastern Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters

Labor union maintaining and improving the benefit and working conditions of members engaged in the carpentry trade.

—
6
American Federation of Labor & Bldg & Construction Trades Council

To create a better working environment for the construction industry and its members.

—
7
Laborers' Int'l Union Local 563

Local 563 represents approximately 7,500 construction workers employed in minneapolis, mn, st paul, mn and surrounding areas. its purpose is to organize all workers for the economic, moral and social advancement of their condition and…

—
8
The Connecticut Construction Industries Association Inc

All activities conducted by the association are to enable it to:a. establish a better understanding between the members and companies in the construction and related industries.b. foster reasonable and just regulations by governments c.…

Employment
9
Baltimore-Dc Metro Building and Construction Trades Council

The objective of the baltimore-dc metro building and construction trades council are to enlist the voluntary cooperation and support of every eligible local union to the end that wage scales and desirable working conditions may be…

—
10
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Orgs

To organize all workers for the economic, moral and social advancement of their condition and status.

—
11
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…

—
12
Central Midwest Regional Council of Carpenters

To organize workers for the moral, economic and social advancement of their condition and status.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans; the most unlike its peers is National Democratic Club. 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

11 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. 11 of the 15 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
9/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

VOTEVETS ACTION FUND INC: $500,000 · OtherVOTEVETS ACTION FUND INCA PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE: $110,000 · OtherA PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTEBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT AFL-CIO: $60,000 · OtherBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT AFL-CIONational Democratic Club: $38,000 · Other+6 more: $67,000 · Other+6 moreDIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOUNDATION INC: $80,500 · HealthDIABETES …CENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT: $60,700 · EmploymentLARC SCHOOL INC D/B/A THE LARC NORCROSS SCHOOL: $15,000 · EducationSHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $6,000 · EducationLABOR COUNCIL FOR LATIN AMERICAN ADVANCEMENT: $15,000 · Civil Rights
Other$775,000Health$80,500Employment$60,700Education$21,000Civil Rights$15,000

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 budgetVOTEVETS ACTION FUND INC: $500,000 over 1y, 9.2% of budgetA PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE: $110,000 over 8y, 3.7% of budgetDIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOUNDATION INC: $80,500 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetCENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT: $60,700 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT AFL-CIO: $60,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetNational Democratic Club: $38,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetNATIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS: $17,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetLARC SCHOOL INC D/B/A THE LARC NORCROSS SCHOOL: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLABOR COUNCIL FOR LATIN AMERICAN ADVANCEMENT: $15,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetMARYLAND STATE AND DC AFL-CIO: $14,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetSHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $6,000 over 1y, 0.9% 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

International Union o…International Brother…
International Union of Bricklayers & Allied CraftworkersDC13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers · International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

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 Pharmaceutical Industry Labor-Management Management Association funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pharmaceutical Industry Labor-Management Management Association. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Larc School Inc D/B/a the Larc Norcross School: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get 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 · 0–10%
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 15 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 Pharmaceutical Industry Labor-Management Management Association’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