Skip to content
Ufcw Region 4 Central States Council at a glance

· Public charity

Ufcw Region 4 Central States Council

The UFCW REGION 4 CENTRAL STATES COUNCIL comprising the states of indiana, kentucky, ohio and michigan, was formed to encourage organizing; to promote unified action to maintain, protect and advance the interest and welfare of the locals and the membership; to secure and promote legislation beneficial to its members and all working…

$75k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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, FY2020 to 2024.

Employment$97kFood & Nutrition$34kHuman Services$25kMembership Benefit$25kCivil Rights$16k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $55,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $74,500 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $19,000 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.
$15,500
Median grant
3
States reached
$760k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (FY23–23, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%SOUTH PACIFIC CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $25k → 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

MI
IN
OH
KY
MD
DC
HI
TX
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 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
United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 3000

Labor union

—
2
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1208

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

—
3
United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No 770

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.

—
4
United Food & Commercial Workers

To promote workers rights to fair wages adn benefits.

—
5
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local No 663

Labor union

—
6
United Food & Commercial Workers

To enable working men and women to have representation in negotiating wages, benefits a good working conditons with their employer.

—
7
United Food and Commercial Workers 1149

To promote fair working rules and wages for workers.

—
8
United Food & Commercial Workers Local1564

To organize workers for their economic and general well being.

—
9
Ufcw District Union Local Two

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

—
10
United Food & Commercial Wrks 1996

To promote rights of workers to organize and negotiate for better working conditions, wages and benefits.

—
11
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1439 (Ab)

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

—
12
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…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No 75; the most unlike its peers is Local One Relief Fund Inc. 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

14 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
4/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

United Food and Commercial Wrks Local 227: $34,000 · OtherUnited Food and Commercial Wrks Local 227AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR OHIO AFL-CIO: $25,000 · OtherAMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR OHIO AFL-CIOUNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 23D: $15,000 · OtherUNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 23DUNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 27 AFL-CIO: $15,000 · OtherUNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 27 AFL-CIOUNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL NO 75: $7,000 · OtherUNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL NO 75UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 876: $7,000 · OtherUNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 876UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 880: $7,000 · OtherUNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 880UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 951: $7,000 · OtherUNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 951UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS: $7,000 · OtherUNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERSUnited Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No 700: $7,000 · OtherUnited Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No 700UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION: $25,000 · EmploymentUNITED FOOD AND COMMERC…United Latinos of the UFCW Inc: $15,500 · EmploymentUnited Latinos of the U…SOUTH PACIFIC CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $25,000 · Human ServicesSOUTH PACIFIC …
Other$131,000Employment$40,500Human Services$25,000

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 budgetUnited Food and Commercial Wrks Local 227: $34,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetSOUTH PACIFIC CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetAMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR OHIO AFL-CIO: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetUNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION: $25,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUnited Latinos of the UFCW Inc: $15,500 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetUNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 23D: $15,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetUNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 27 AFL-CIO: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL NO 75: $7,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 876: $7,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 880: $7,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 951: $7,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS: $7,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUnited Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No 700: $7,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

United Food and Comme…
United Food and Commercial Workers International UnionDC13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

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 Ufcw Region 4 Central States Council funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ufcw Region 4 Central States Council. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%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
    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 13 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 Ufcw Region 4 Central States Council’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