Skip to content
Seiu Minnesota State Council at a glance

· Public charity

Seiu Minnesota State Council

To promote harmony between all affliated locals, assist all locals in organizing, politics, and in case of strikes, use power to the best interest of all locals and to carry out the objectives and purposes of the international union.

$96k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$66k
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.

Civil Rights$310kPublic Benefit$189kEducation$160kEmployment$156kMembership Benefit$18k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $30k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $66k
$66,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$31k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NEW BROOKWOOD LABOR COLLEGE$66,000
SEIU HEALTHCARE MN & IOWA$30,000
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 (FY18–18, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%IAPALA: $50k → 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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$734k · 6 repeat orgs$99k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +19% since the first grant, against +6% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
4

Total granted

$734k
$99k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
+6%

Still filing today

100%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EmploymentEducationHuman ServicesPublic BenefitCivil 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

  • CD
    CENTRO DE TRABAJADORES UNIDOS EN LUCHA
    2× · 2021–2022 · $242k · revenue +62%
  • SE
    SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION HEALTHCARE MINNESOTA AND IOWA
    2× · 2023–2024 · $100k · revenue +19%
  • JC
    JEWISH COMMUNITY ACTION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $43k · revenue +96%

Funded once

  • IF
    INSTITUTE FOR ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEADERSHIP AND ADVANCEMENT
    one grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue -72%
  • OM
    ONE MINNESOTA TRANSITION COMMITTEE
    one grant, 2019 · $25k
  • MR
    Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation
    one grant, 2020 · $18k · revenue +9%
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
San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council Afl-Cio

The Labor Council offers an avenue for local unions to come together as one group.

—
2
Laborers International Union of North America Local 152

Labor union

—
3
Laborers' International Union of North America Laborers' Local #43

Promote and protect the interests of the members of the local

—
4
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance Afl -Cio

Committed to developing a comprehensive strategy to help asian american native hawaiian pacific islander (aanhpi) workers form their unions and promoting the participation and leadership of aanhpi workers within the labor movement and…

—
5
Laborers International Union of North America

Representing members in matters of collective bargaining.

—
6
Laborers International Union of State of Mi

Collective bargaining and representation

—
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
Laborers International Union of North America Local #165

Operation of local union.

—
9
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.

—
10
Laborers International Union Local 668

To represent union membership for purposes of collective bargaining.

—
11
Laborers International Union of Na Great Plains Laborers' District Council

Provide assistance to member locals with all union related activities.

—
12
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.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation; the most unlike its peers is New Brookwood Labor College. 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

9 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. 9 of the 10 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Better Together MN: $166,318 · OtherBetter Together MNSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION HEALTHCARE MINNESOTA AND IOWA: $100,000 · OtherSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION HEAL…ONE MINNESOTA TRANSITION COMMITTEE: $25,000 · OtherONE MINNESOTA TRANSITION COMMITTEEMinneapolis Regional Labor Federation: $17,500 · OtherMinneapolis Regional Labor Federation+1 more: $6,000 · OtherCENTRO DE TRABAJADORES UNIDOS EN LUCHA: $242,000 · EmploymentCENTRO DE TRABAJADORES UNIDOS EN…NEW BROOKWOOD LABOR COLLEGE: $160,000 · EducationNEW BROOKWOOD LABOR C…INSTITUTE FOR ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEADERSHIP AND ADVANCEMENT: $50,000 · Human ServicesJEWISH COMMUNITY ACTION: $42,800 · Civil RightsTAKEACTION MINNESOTA: $23,133 · Public Benefit
Other$314,818Employment$242,000Education$160,000Human Services$50,000Civil Rights$42,800Public Benefit$23,133

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 budgetCENTRO DE TRABAJADORES UNIDOS EN LUCHA: $242,000 over 2y, 8.1% of budgetBetter Together MN: $166,318 over 2y, 52% of budgetNEW BROOKWOOD LABOR COLLEGE: $160,000 over 2y, 57% of budgetSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION HEALTHCARE MINNESOTA AND IOWA: $100,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEADERSHIP AND ADVANCEMENT: $50,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetJEWISH COMMUNITY ACTION: $42,800 over 2y, 4.1% of budgetTAKEACTION MINNESOTA: $23,133 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetMinneapolis Regional Labor Federation: $17,500 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetAMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR & CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGS: $6,000 over 1y, 0.6% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Donor Advised Charita…
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Seiu Minnesota State Council funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Seiu Minnesota State Council. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’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
    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 10 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 Seiu Minnesota State Council’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