Skip to content
San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council AFL-CIO at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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.

$389k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$360k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Public Benefit$2.2MEmployment$349kCommunity Improvement$230kSocial Science$25kHealth$23kCivil Rights$20kFood & Nutrition$17kRecreation & Sports$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $250k+1 grant · $360k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
San Diego Works$360,000
San Diego Democratic Party$10,000
Individual grant recipient$7,500
John S Lyons Foundation$5,000
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:

Its 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CENTER ON POLICY INITIATIVES: $25k → 11%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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.8M · 6 repeat orgs$410k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +223% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
19

Total granted

$2.8M
$410k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+223%
+10%

Still filing today

33%
53%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EmploymentHuman ServicesEducationCommunity ImprovementFood & NutritionRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • SD
    San Diego Works
    9× · 2017–2025 · $2.4M
  • PF
    PARTNERSHIP FOR A BETTER SAN DIEGO
    2× · 2021–2023 · $230k · revenue +43%
  • YF
    YES FOR A BETTER SAN DIEGO
    2× · 2018–2019 · $80k

Funded once

  • UC
    UAW CENTER FOR MANUFACTURING A GREEN ECONOMY
    one grant, 2023 · $80k
  • UL
    UNITED LABOR CENTER INC
    one grant, 2023 · $74k · revenue -3%
  • SF
    SD FOR FULL VOTER PARTICIPATION
    one grant, 2018 · $50k
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
Laborers International Union of 341 Hcl

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…

—
2
Laborers International Union of North America - Local 1076

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.

—
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
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 4

The union improves working conditions and living standards of members through collective bargaining, education, training and employee benefits and establishes necessary procedures for the amicable adjustment of all disputes which may arise…

—
5
Unite Here Local 49

Labor organization providing collective bargaining representation to its membership.

—
6
Laborers' International Union of North America Laborers' Local #43

Promote and protect the interests of the members of the local

—
7
Laborers International Union of North America Local 872

To provide continuous employment, collectively bargain for improvement of working conditions and wages.

—
8
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 428

The organization is a labor union, organized under an International Charter, to provide and promote benefits for its members and represent them in labor negotiations and contract issues.

—
9
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 564

Local labor union was established to promote & protect the interests of its membership with regard to social & working conditions encourages a higher standard of skill and employment. the local union is involved in collecive bargaining and…

Employment
10
Laborers International Union of North America Local 152

Labor union

—
11
Laborers International Union of North America

Representing members in matters of collective bargaining.

—
12
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 194 Local

Labor union - electrical workers

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Unite Here Local 30; 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.
04the grantee network

12 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. 12 of the 25 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

San Diego Works: $2,413,000 · OtherSan Diego Works+16 more: $338,699 · Other+16 morePARTNERSHIP FOR A BETTER SAN DIEGO: $230,000 · EducationUAW CENTER FOR MANUFACTURING A GREEN ECONOMY: $80,000 · EmploymentNATIONAL UNION OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS: $10,000 · EmploymentPROGRESSIVE LABOR ALLIANCE: $5,000 · EmploymentUNITED LABOR CENTER INC: $74,070 · Community ImprovementJOHN STACY LYONS MEMORIAL FNDTN: $37,500 · Recreation & SportsCENTER ON POLICY INITIATIVES: $25,000 · Human ServicesFEEDING SAN DIEGO: $17,268 · Food & Nutrition
Other$2,751,699Education$230,000Employment$95,000Community Improvement$74,070Recreation & Sports$37,500Human Services$25,000Food & Nutrition$17,268

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 budgetPARTNERSHIP FOR A BETTER SAN DIEGO: $230,000 over 2y, 15% of budgetUNITED LABOR CENTER INC: $74,070 over 1y, 6.4% of budgetJOHN STACY LYONS MEMORIAL FNDTN: $37,500 over 6y, 58% of budgetCENTER ON POLICY INITIATIVES: $25,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS: $20,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetFEEDING SAN DIEGO: $17,268 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 122: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetNATIONAL UNION OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNITE HERE LOCAL 30: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetLABORS TRAINING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE: $7,500 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetPROGRESSIVE LABOR ALLIANCE: $5,000 over 1y, 1.8% 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.

United Domestic Worke…The San Diego Foundat…
United Domestic Workers of AmericaCA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Domestic Workers of America · The San Diego 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 San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council AFL-CIO funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council AFL-CIO. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 25 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 San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council AFL-CIO’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