How much did UFCW REGION 4 CENTRAL STATES COUNCIL grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 67% of UFCW REGION 4 CENTRAL STATES COUNCIL’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2020

wagesbenefitsworking conditionsmoralsocialadvancementstatus

2021

—

2023

—

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$15,500

Median grant

States reached

$760k

Total assets

Largest grants

UFCW HARDSHIP FUND$25,000
UNITED LATINOS OF THE UFCW INC$15,500
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 27 (AFL-CIO)$15,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY23–23, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9% — the area typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your field

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.

United Food & Commercial Workers

Labor union

—

United Food and Commercial Workers

Labor union

—

United Food and Commercial Workers

To improve the lives of working families and to bring economic justice to the workplace.

—

United Food & Commercial Workers

Organizing and maintaining membership through maintenance of wages and benefits.

—

United Food & Commercial Workers

Promoting rights of workers to organize and have representation in collective bargaining efforts for the bettement of wages, benefits and working conditions.

—

United Food and Commercial Workers Union

To unite members into one organization for the purpose of improving economic advantage through collective bargaining and to promote education and social awareness of its membership.

—

United Food & Commercial Workers Local1564

To organize workers for their economic and general well being.

—

United Food and Commercial Workers

To organize all workers for the economic, moral, and social advancement of their condition and status.

—

Ufcw District Union Local Two

To improve working conditions of its members and provide benefits of collective bargaining,

—

United Steelworkers

Local Union enorced the Collective Barganing Agreetment to better the working conditions of the Local Union and provide Representation to its members.

—

United Food & Commercial Workers Local 293

To organize workers and improve their economic, moral an social advancement.

—

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and

Labor union

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Food and Commercial Workers Union and the most unlike its peers is South Pacific Charitable Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

05the grantee network

14 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

14/14

Grantees still filing

7/14

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$131,000Employment$40,500Human Services$25,000

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.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organisation UFCW REGION 4 CENTRAL STATES COUNCIL 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

1get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

04Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: UNITED LATINOS OF THE UFCW INC.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~16 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 8 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

8 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up +87% since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 202928527 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on UNITED LATINOS OF THE UFCW INC, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 16 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 3% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Ufcw Region 4 Central States Council?

Find your warmest path to Ufcw Region 4 Central States Council through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

UFCW REGION 4 CENTRAL STATES COUNCIL

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

14 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Ufcw Region 4 Central States Council?

More from the funding graph

UFCW REGION 4 CENTRAL STATES COUNCIL

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

14 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Ufcw Region 4 Central States Council?

More from the funding graph