Skip to content
Service Employees' Local No 1 at a glance

· Public charity

Service Employees' Local No 1

Labor union

$108k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$23k
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.

Employment$182kEducation$127kCivil Rights$70kMembership Benefit$40kHuman Services$25kFood & Nutrition$22kCommunity Improvement$20kPublic Benefit$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $73,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $108,221 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $35,221 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.
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$19M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNITED FOR JUSTICE - CO SEIU 32BJ$23,000
DEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO$20,000
GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY$10,000
ILLINOIS COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS$10,000
CHICAGO FEDERATION OF LABOR$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:

Its human-services grants (FY20–20, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND: $25k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
MI
NY
NV
MO
MD
DC
GA
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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$350k · 8 repeat orgs$176k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +66% since the first grant, against +15% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
9

Total granted

$350k
$133k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+66%
+15%

Still filing today

100%
89%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 41% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $43k 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
Civil RightsEmploymentEducationEnvironmentHuman ServicesFood & NutritionOther
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

  • SL
    SEIU LOCAL 1 SCHOLARSHIP FUND CHARITABLE TRUST
    4× · 2019–2022 · $127k · revenue +66% · 53% of their budget
  • IC
    ILLINOIS COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS
    6× · 2019–2024 · $60k · revenue +497%
  • ARISE CHICAGO
    3× · 2017–2019 · $35k · revenue +372%

Funded once

  • SE
    SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNI MICHIGAN STRENGTH IN ACTION COUNCILgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $40k · revenue +605%
  • GI
    Georgia Investor Action Fund Incgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue +232%
  • RS
    Revived Soldiers Ukraine
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue -65%
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
Latino Union of Chicago

Latino Union works to defend the rights and dignity of contingent workers, including the right to immigrate, work, live free of oppression and violence, and provide for oneself and one's family.

Human Services
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
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…

—
4
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.

—
5
Laborers International Union of State of Mi

Collective bargaining and representation

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

Promote and protect the interests of the members of the local

—
7
Chicago Municipal Employee's Credit Union

To give members the ability to control their financial destiny by providing members with the means to satisfy their needs for financial services in a comfortable family-like environment. in doing so, the credit union strives to maintain…

—
8
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…

—
9
Laborers International Union of North America Local 152

Labor union

—
10
Laborers International Union of North America

Representing members in matters of collective bargaining.

—
11
Seiu Local 2015

Seiu local 2015 is a chartered local union of the service employees international union and is an unincorporated, tax-exempt association currently representing bargaining unit members.

—
12
Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board Workers United

The joint board's purpose is to organize workers for the economic, moral and social advancement of their condition and status in life. the joint board also promotes efficient service to the public and the best interest for member's…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Seiu Healthcare Illinois & Indiana; the most unlike its peers is Revived Soldiers Ukraine. 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

19 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/19
Grantees still filing
13/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNI MICHIGAN STRENGTH IN ACTION COUNCIL: $40,000 · OtherSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNI MICHIGAN …SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION: $35,000 · OtherSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNIONSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL NO 73: $30,000 · OtherSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL N…CHICAGO FEDERATION OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL UNION COUNCIL: $25,000 · OtherCHICAGO FEDERATION OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL UN…Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ: $23,000 · OtherService Employees International Union Local 3…SEIU HEALTHCARE ILLINOIS & INDIANA: $10,000 · OtherMICHIGAN TRANSITION 2019: $10,000 · OtherAMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS: $8,034 · OtherRevived Soldiers Ukraine: $10,000 · OtherCHICAGO ALDERMANIC BLACK CAUCUS FOUNDATION: $10,000 · OtherVOICES FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE: $10,000 · OtherSEIU LOCAL 1 SCHOLARSHIP FUND CHARITABLE TRUST: $127,000 · EducationSEIU LOCAL 1 SCHOLARSHIP FU…ILLINOIS COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS: $60,000 · Civil RightsILLINOIS COALIT…CHICAGO JOBS WITH JUSTICE: $10,000 · Civil RightsCHICAGO JOBS WI…ARISE CHICAGO: $35,100 · EmploymentARISE CHIC…MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE: $15,870 · EmploymentMISSOURI J…Georgia Investor Action Fund Inc: $25,000 · Human ServicesGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $22,000 · Food & NutritionDEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO: $20,000 · Community Improvement
Other$211,034Education$127,000Civil Rights$70,000Employment$50,970Human Services$25,000Food & Nutrition$22,000Community Improvement$20,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSEIU LOCAL 1 SCHOLARSHIP FUND CHARITABLE TRUST: $127,000 over 4y, 53% of budgetILLINOIS COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS: $60,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNI MICHIGAN STRENGTH IN ACTION COUNCIL: $40,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetARISE CHICAGO: $35,100 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION: $35,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL NO 73: $30,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGeorgia Investor Action Fund Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCHICAGO FEDERATION OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL UNION COUNCIL: $25,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetService Employees International Union Local 32BJ: $23,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $22,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetDEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE: $15,870 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetRevived Soldiers Ukraine: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSEIU HEALTHCARE ILLINOIS & INDIANA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHICAGO ALDERMANIC BLACK CAUCUS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetMICHIGAN TRANSITION 2019: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetVOICES FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE: $10,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetAMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS: $8,034 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

Service Employees Int…Seiu Healthcare Illin…Tides FoundationAmalgamated Charitabl…Fidelity Investments …
Service Employees International Illinois CouncilIL15.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Service Employees International Illinois Council · Seiu Healthcare Illinois & Indiana · Tides Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Service Employees' Local No 1 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Service Employees' Local No 1. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%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
    1get no government money at all
    5report 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 19 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 Service Employees' Local No 1’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