Skip to content
The Laborers Northwest Regional Organizing Coalition at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The Laborers Northwest Regional Organizing Coalition

The northwest regional organizing coalition (nroc) is established and exists to increase union participation in the industries in which the laborers' international union of north america (liuna!) currently represents workers.

$4.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
19
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$2.4M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Employment$6.5MPublic Benefit$6.4MEnvironment$3.8MCivil Rights$804kEducation$373kCommunity Improvement$176kReligion$147kPhilanthropy$145kOther$0
02FY2025 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 19 grants below total $3,820,314, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,953,681 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $133,367 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.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $145k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $747k
  • $250k+3 grants · $2.9M
$30,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$14M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WA & N ID DISTRICT COUNCIL$2,422,500
Laborers Pacific SW Regional$250,000
NW REG ORGANIZING COAL PAC$250,000
Alaska District Council$213,000
LABORERS UNION LOCAL 341$175,488
OREGONS IDAHO DIST COUNCIL$146,000
LABORERS UNION LOCAL 942$93,443
Individual grant recipient$69,133
LIUNA Local 872$50,000
SNLECET$30,000
Vernie Reed NW Scholarship$22,250
Individual grant recipient$20,000
NORTHWEST DELEGATE FUND$20,000
LABORERS UNION LOCAL 720$12,500
Individual grant recipient$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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 27% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Montana AFL-CIO: $100k → 9%Laborers Pacific SW Regional: $300k → 12%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 942: $211k → 8%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 341: $564k → 10%LABORERS LOCAL 872: $100k → 13%Laborers Pacific SW Regional: $250k → 12%T OSullivan LIUNA Charitabl: $90k → 14%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 942: $209k → 8%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 341: $454k → 10%Pacific SW LECET: $75k → 12%NW REG ORGANIZING COAL PAC: $1.0M → 9%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 942: $204k → 8%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 341: $441k → 10%NW REG ORGANIZING COAL PAC: $950k → 9%WA & N ID DISTRICT COUNCIL: $2.4M → 9%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 942: $204k → 8%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 341: $434k → 10%OREGONS IDAHO DIST COUNCIL: $146k → 12%NW REG ORGANIZING COAL PAC: $580k → 9%WA & N ID DISTRICT COUNCIL: $2.3M → 9%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 942: $204k → 8%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 341: $205k → 10%NW REG ORGANIZING COAL PAC: $520k → 9%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 942: $193k → 8%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 341: $204k → 10%NROC LPL EDU: $500k → 9%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 942: $189k → 8%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 341: $204k → 10%NORTHWEST COOPERATION FUND: $270k → 9%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 942: $186k → 8%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 341: $204k → 10%NW REG ORGANIZING COAL PAC: $260k → 9%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 942: $93k → 8%LABORERS UNION LOCAL 341: $175k → 10%Alaska District Council: $260k → 9%NW REG ORGANIZING COAL PAC: $250k → 9%Alaska District Council: $235k → 9%Alaska District Council: $230k → 9%Alaska District Council: $213k → 9%Alaska District Council: $180k → 9%Alaska District Council: $180k → 9%NW REG ORGANIZING COAL PAC: $150k → 9%Alaska District Council: $135k → 9%NORTHWEST DELEGATE FUND: $122k → 9%TERENCE J OSULLIVAN LIUNA: $91k → 9%NROC LPL EDU: $90k → 9%NORTHWEST DELEGATE FUND: $86k → 9%Keep Washington Rolling: $75k → 9%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

AK
WA
ID
MT
IL
NY
OR
NV
OH
PA
CA
CO
MD
DC
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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$18M · 30 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

30 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

30
33

Total granted

$18M
$843k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+3%
+24%

Still filing today

27%
24%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $236k 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
Community ImprovementRecreation & SportsPublic BenefitEmploymentInternationalOther
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

  • NC
    NORTHWEST COOPERATION FUND
    3× · 2020–2023 · $292k · revenue +24%
  • MS
    MONTANA STATE AFL-CIO
    2× · 2020–2024 · $125k · revenue +33%
  • LU
    LABORERS UNION LOCAL 155
    4× · 2018–2021 · $74k · revenue +100%

Funded once

  • TJ
    TERENCE J OSULLIVAN LIUNA
    one grant, 2020 · $91k
  • TO
    T OSullivan LIUNA Charitabl
    one grant, 2024 · $90k
  • CF
    Citizens for Better Transportation
    one grant, 2019 · $75k
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
Afl-Cio Snohomish & Island County Labor Council

Member, affiliate, and community education for worker's issues - union and non-union

—
2
Washington State Patrol Union Troopers Association

Collective bargaining for members

—
3
Laborers International Union Local 668

To represent union membership for purposes of collective bargaining.

—
4
Washington State Labor Council Afl-Cio

To protect and strengthen the rights and conditions of working people and their families.

—
5
Laborers International Union of North America

Represents its members when dealing with the state of Delaware and other employment related matters.

—
6
The Laborers Northwest Regional Organizing Coalition

The northwest regional organizing coalition (nroc) is established and exists to increase union participation in the industries in which the laborers' international union of north america (liuna!) currently represents workers. it is nroc's…

—
7
Laborers' International Union of North America Laborers' Local #43

Promote and protect the interests of the members of the local

—
8
The Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition

to organize workers in the laborers international union of north America, afl-cio pacific southwest region through a coordinated program to maintain and improve employment opportunities for affiliated local union members and to recruit new…

Employment
9
Laborers Local Union 1095

The Organization's primary mission is to act as collective bargaining agent on behalf of its members to provide jobs and better working conditions.

—
10
Laborers International Union of North America Local #165

Operation of local union.

—
11
Laborers' International Union of North America Local 561

To provide members with employment referrals, labor services, labor representation and benefits.

—
12
Laborers International Union of North America Local 152

Labor union

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Montana State Afl-Cio; the most unlike its peers is Assemblies of God Oregon District. 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. 19 of the 67 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)
18/19
Grantees still filing
10/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WA & N ID DISTRICT COUNCIL: $4,710,000 · OtherWA & N ID DISTRICT COUNCILNW REG ORGANIZING COAL PAC: $3,710,172 · OtherNW REG ORGANIZING COAL PACLABORERS UNION LOCAL 341: $2,885,499 · OtherLABORERS UNION LOCAL 341LABORERS UNION LOCAL 942: $1,692,429 · OtherLABORERS UNION LOCAL 942Alaska District Council: $1,432,727 · OtherAlaska District CouncilIndividual grant recipient: $700,000 · Other+55 more: $3,970,945 · Other+55 moreRENEWABLE HYDROGEN ALLIANCE: $29,000 · Community ImprovementSpokane Alliance: $10,000 · Community ImprovementNW COALITION FOR ENERGY CHOICE: $25,000 · Public BenefitWASHINGTON IRELAND PROGRAM FOR SERVICE & LEADERSHIP: $15,000 · InternationalCENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT: $10,000 · EmploymentWrestle Like a Girl Inc: $7,500 · Recreation & Sports
Other$19,101,772Community Improvement$39,000Public Benefit$25,000International$15,000Employment$10,000Recreation & Sports$7,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNORTHWEST COOPERATION FUND: $292,365 over 3y, 7.8% of budgetLABORERS LOCAL 1686 MONTANA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS: $264,000 over 4y, 9.2% of budgetMONTANA STATE AFL-CIO: $125,000 over 2y, 5.8% of budgetTERENCE J O'SULLIVAN LIUNA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $90,000 over 4y, 3.2% of budgetLABORERS UNION LOCAL 155: $74,000 over 4y, 7.3% of budgetPUBLIC EMPLOYEES LOCAL 71: $71,620 over 4y, 1.0% of budgetRENEWABLE HYDROGEN ALLIANCE: $29,000 over 2y, 4.4% of budgetNo on 2117 Committee: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNW COALITION FOR ENERGY CHOICE: $25,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetWASHINGTON IRELAND PROGRAM FOR SERVICE & LEADERSHIP: $15,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetCENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWrestle Like a Girl Inc: $7,500 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetAMERICAN LEGION POST 64: $7,000 over 1y, 76% 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.

  • Who funds NORTHWEST COOPERATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds LABORERS LOCAL 1686 MONTANA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS ↗
  • Who funds MONTANA STATE AFL-CIO ↗
  • Who funds TERENCE J O'SULLIVAN LIUNA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Citizens for Better Transportation ↗
  • Who funds LABORERS UNION LOCAL 155 ↗
  • Who funds PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LOCAL 71 ↗
  • Who funds Assemblies of God Oregon District ↗
  • Who funds LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL 872 ↗
  • Who funds RENEWABLE HYDROGEN ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds No on 2117 Committee ↗
  • Who funds NW COALITION FOR ENERGY CHOICE ↗

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.

Great Lakes Region Or…
Great Lakes Region Organizing CommitteeIL13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Great Lakes Region Organizing Committee

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 The Laborers Northwest Regional Organizing Coalition funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Laborers Northwest Regional Organizing Coalition. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%23%51%90%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
    2get no government money at all
    3report 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 67 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 Laborers Northwest Regional Organizing Coalition’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