· Public charity
San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council AFL-CIO
The Labor Council offers an avenue for local unions to come together as one group.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 6 grants below total $403,699 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $416,600 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $12,901 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 · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $14k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $30k
- $250k+1 grant · $360k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| San Diego Works | $360,000 |
| Unite HERE Local 30 | $10,000 |
| San Diego County Democratic Party | $10,000 |
| National Union of Healthcare Workers | $10,000 |
| John S Lyons Foundation | $7,500 |
| Imperial Valley Works | $6,199 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–17, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +223% since the first grant, against +83% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $26k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- SDSan Diego Works8× · 2017–2024 · $2.1M
- PFPARTNERSHIP FOR A BETTER SAN DIEGO2× · 2021–2023 · $230k · revenue +149%
- YFYES FOR A BETTER SAN DIEGO2× · 2018–2019 · $80k
Funded once
- UCUAW CENTER FOR MANUFACTURING A GREEN ECONOMYone grant, 2023 · $80k
- ULUNITED LABOR CENTER INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $74k · revenue +83%
- SFSD FOR FULL VOTER PARTICIPATIONone grant, 2018 · $50k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Union hall devoted to the betterment of members compensation and working conditions, to secure recognition of workers rights to engage in collective bargaining, and to promote the development and maintenance of on-the-job safety practices…
Labor organization providing collective bargaining representation to its membership.
The Labor Council offers an avenue for local unions to come together as one group.
The local is a nonprofit organization established to represent its members in wage and fringe benefits matters in the construction industry. the local's primary areas of jurisdiction are oakland and livingston counties.
Promote and protect the interests of the members of the local
Labor union - electrical workers
Labor organization for various industries; ensuring fair wages and proper benefits for its members.
Represents its members when dealing with the state of Delaware and other employment related matters.
Labor union
Representing members in matters of collective bargaining.
To unite members into one organization for the purpose of improving economic advantage through collective bargaining and to promote education and social awareness of its membership.
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Unite Here Local 30 and the most unlike its peers is John Stacy Lyons Memorial Fndtn. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 25 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds PARTNERSHIP FOR A BETTER SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds UAW CENTER FOR MANUFACTURING A GREEN ECONOMY ↗
- Who funds UNITED LABOR CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds JOHN STACY LYONS MEMORIAL FNDTN ↗
- Who funds CENTER ON POLICY INITIATIVES ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS ↗
- Who funds FEEDING SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds UNITE HERE LOCAL 30 ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 122 ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL UNION OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS ↗
- Who funds LABORS TRAINING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds PROGRESSIVE LABOR ALLIANCE ↗
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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: United Domestic Workers of America · The San Diego Foundation
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 San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council AFL-CIO 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.
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.