· Public charity
Teamsters Local 1932
It is the mission of TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932 to provide the best possible service to all our members with integrity and equality; to advance the social, economic, and educational welfare of the membership; to promote professional working relationships and fair play between members and management alike; and to positively contribute to the…
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 8 grants below total $97,630 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $253,245 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $155,615 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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k4 grants · $30k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $67k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| YOUTH HELPERS INC | $32,215 |
| WORKER SOLIDARITY AND DEFENSE FOUNDATION | $15,000 |
| TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932 CHARITY | $10,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS SCHOLARSHIP FUND | $10,000 |
| TEAMSTERS LOCAL 63 CHARITY | $9,715 |
| STAGECOACH DAYS ASSOCIATION | $8,500 |
| RAZA GOLF FOUNDATION | $6,200 |
| INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF 42 JOINT COUNCIL | $6,000 |
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 (FY18–19, $13k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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 +17% since the first grant, against -5% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k 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
- YHYOUTH HELPERS INC6× · 2017–2025 · $114k · revenue +88%
- IBInternational Brotherhood of 42 Joint Council7× · 2017–2025 · $67k · revenue +17%
- TLTEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932 CHARITY4× · 2019–2025 · $30k · revenue +438%
Funded once
- TLTEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932 TRAINING CENTERone grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue -42%
- LALOS ANGELES TRADE TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATIONone grant, 2018 · $12k · revenue -74%
- WWWE WILL FOUNDATIONone grant, 2018 · $10k
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.
The council coordinated the efforts of affiliated local unions and assisted their organizations work, bettering the working conditions of their members.
To promote better working conditions for members.
To organize clerical employees of the university of california system in order to secure fair wages and better working conditions.
Labor organization for various industries; ensuring fair wages and proper benefits for its members.
It is the mission of teamsters local 1932 to provide the best possible service to all our members with integrity and equality; to advance the social, economic, and educational welfare of the membership; to promote professional working…
To organize all workers and to seure improved wages, hours, working conditions and other economic advantages through organizing, negotiations, and collective bargaining.
The mission of teamsters local 959 is to provide its members with representation in the workplace and to support the interests of labor everywhere.
To promote the common interests of those engaged in california's trucking industry.
To organize workers and to secure improved wages, benefits and working conditions.
The local union's mission is to organize and educate workers so that they have a voice in the workplace and know their workplace rights; involve workers in the political process and to negotiate with employers so that each worker is…
At California Transportation Foundation (CTF) our mission is simple. We recognize the best and brightest in our industry with our Annual CTF Transportation Awards program. We remember those who have given all in service to the people of…
To provide support for its members through labor negotiations, collective bargaining agreements and by working towards eliminating unfair labor practices.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Teamsters 848 All Charities Fund Inc and the most unlike its peers is Teamsters Local 1932 Training Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 26 years old; the field is 13. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 19% of your grantees by number, and just 26% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
25 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. 25 of the 26 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 YOUTH HELPERS INC ↗
- Who funds International Brotherhood of 42 Joint Council ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS SCHOLARSHIP FUND INC ↗
- Who funds JAMES R HOFFA MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP FUND INC ↗
- Who funds TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932 CHARITY ↗
- Who funds TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932 TRAINING CENTER ↗
- Who funds TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TEAMSTERS 848 ALL CHARITIES FUND INC ↗
- Who funds WORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC ↗
- Who funds SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS EMPLOYEES BENEFIT ASSOC-CHARITY FUND ↗
- Who funds COLETTE'S CHILDREN'S HOME INC ↗
- Who funds WORKER SOLIDARITY AND DEFENSE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds The Christmas Cheer All Year Program ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES TRADE TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WE WILL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
- Who funds STAGECOACH DAYS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds The Southern California & Southern Nevada Teamsters JC 42 Charity Fund Inc ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY ENTERPRISES CORPORATION AT CSUSB ↗
- Who funds ASSOCIATED STUDENTS CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN BERNARDINO ↗
- Who funds RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds TEAMSTERS NATIONAL BLACK CAUCUS ↗
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: International Brotherhood of 063 TCWH · International Brotherhood of 396 TCWH · International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 2010 · Teamsters Local 986 Charity Fund Inc · International Brotherhood of 848 Tcwh · International Brotherhood of Teamsters · International Brotherhood of 911 TCWH · International Brotherhood of 572 TCWH · City Employees Union Local 237 Ibt Afl-C · International Brotherhood of Teamsters Warehouse Wholesale Liquor Salesperson · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Teamsters Local 1932 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.