· Public charity
Service Employees International Union Local 105
To organize all workers for their moral, economic and social advancement.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 50% of SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 105’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 1 grants below total $29,300 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $73,915 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $44,615 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| COLORADO AFL-CIO | $29,300 |
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 (FY17–23, $103k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
4 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 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, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k 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
- CCCOLORADO CARE WORKERS UNITE3× · 2020–2023 · $165k · revenue +45% · 94% of their budget
- WNWFP NATIONAL COMMITTEE PAC4× · 2017–2020 · $103k
- UFUNITED FOR A NEW ECONOMY5× · 2017–2021 · $50k · revenue -19%
Funded once
- SCSEIU COLORADO STATE COUNCILone grant, 2023 · $81k · revenue -69%
- SLSEIU LOCAL 105 SDC FOR WORKING FAMone grant, 2023 · $21k
- SESERVICE EMPLOYEES INTL UNION LOCAL 49one grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue +9%
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.
To oppose a colorado statewide ballot initiative to join the national popular vote compact
To promote the common good and general welfare of americans by promoting public policy that strengthens the economy, promotes job growth, and supports fair and reasonable business regulations.
To protect, defend, and extend the civil rights and civil liberties of all people in Colorado through litigation, education, and advocacy
Promote the common interest of employers and to promote the general welfare of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing industry in colorado.
AIA Colorado,is the voice of the architecture profession in Colorado. Through advocacy, leadership development, education and resources for architects, the organization supports architecture professionals in designing a better world where…
Colorado center on law and policy is an antipoverty organization advancing the rights of every coloradan.
To conduct research, promote community engagement, and provide an amalgamation of information to the citizens of colorado.
To advocate for social justice for people with all types of disabilities.
The latina initiative is committed to amplifying the voices of marginalized communities. we encourage latinas to vote to ensure they are heard by elected leaders at all levels.
The mission of the center for legal inclusiveness (cli) is to advance diversity in the legal profession by actively educating and supporting private and public sector legal organizations in their individual campaigns to create cultures of…
Coloradans for food justice is building community power by making sure that every eater in colorado has a voice to make transformative change that represents a more just food system by mobilizing values-driven voters statewide.
Colorado Civil Justice League is an advocacy organization established to foster a balanced and efficient civil justice system for the benefit of all.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Colorado Afl-Cio and the most unlike its peers is Urban Leaders Fellowship. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 of the 17 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 COLORADO CARE WORKERS UNITE ↗
- Who funds SEIU COLORADO STATE COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds UNITED FOR A NEW ECONOMY ↗
- Who funds COLORADO PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds COLORADO AFL-CIO ↗
- Who funds SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTL UNION LOCAL 49 ↗
- Who funds TOGETHER COLORADO ↗
- Who funds COLORADO IMMIGRANT RIGHTS COALITION ↗
- Who funds UNITED FOR A NEW ECONOMY ACTION ↗
- Who funds FAITH IN COLORADO ↗
- Who funds ONE COLORADO ↗
- Who funds COLORADO PEOPLE'S ACTION ↗
- Who funds URBAN LEADERS FELLOWSHIP ↗
- Who funds 9TO5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN INC ↗
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: Rose Community Foundation · Brett Family Foundation · The Colorado Trust · Community Foundation Boulder County · The Colorado Health Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Colorado Workers for Innovative and New Solutions · Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium Dba 35 Mil · General Service Foundation · Chinook Fund Inc · Center for Community Change
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 Service Employees International Union Local 105 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.