A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 80% of UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN & APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING & PIPE’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.

02FY2025 · 88 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 88 grants below total $38,882,909 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $40,183,481 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,300,572 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 $10k3 grants · $24k
$10k–50k33 grants · $685k
$50k–250k25 grants · $2.9M
$250k+27 grants · $35M

$91,667

Median grant

States reached

$533M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
UA LOCAL 669	$2,150,000
OHIO STATE ASSOCIATION	$1,900,000
NEW YORK STATE PIPE TRADES ASSOCIATION	$1,833,333
GEORGIACAROLINAS PIPE TRADES	$1,783,333
MID-ATLANTIC PIPE TRADES ASSOCIATION	$1,779,167
TENNESSEE STATE PIPE TRADES	$1,728,000
ILLINOIS PIPE TRADES	$1,720,000
MOUNTAIN STATES PIPE TRADES ASSOCIATION	$1,686,667
LOUISIANA (SOUTH CENTRAL AND SPECIAL)	$1,583,333
NEW JERSEY STATE ASSOCIATION	$1,575,500
MINNESOTA PIPE TRADES ASSOCIATION	$1,530,000
SOUTHWEST PIPE TRADES ASSOCIATION	$1,475,000
MINK PIPE TRADES ASSOCIATION	$1,446,667
PENNSYLVANIA STATE ASSOCIATION	$1,429,167
FLORIDA PIPE TRADES COUNCIL	$1,343,333

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:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 77% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. 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 linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

Which US states your grants reach

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.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$179M · 98 repeat orgs$4.9M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +32% since the first grant, against +3% for the ones you funded once.

98 repeat relationships — 70 still active in FY2025, 28 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$179M

$4.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+32%

+3%

Still filing today

92%

57%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $520k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

EmploymentEducationHealthMembership BenefitCommunity ImprovementEnvironmentOther

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

RS
ROAD SPRINKLER FITTERS LOCAL UNION NO 669 UA
9× · 2017–2025 · $12M · revenue +87%
UA
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS
9× · 2017–2025 · $9.5M · revenue +221% · 72% of their budget
SC
SOUTH CENTRAL PIPE TRADES ASSOCIATI
9× · 2017–2025 · $8.8M · revenue +115% · 42% of their budget

Funded once

VY
VOTE YES FOR WORKERS RIGHTS
one grant, 2023 · $1.0M
PS
PENNSYLVANIA STATE PIPE TRADES ASSOCIATION LMCC
one grant, 2023 · $600k
PL
PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO 1 WELFARE FUND
one grant, 2024 · $585k · revenue 0%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your 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 Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plmbng & Pipe 353 Ppf

Operation of steamfitters' local union for the benefit of its members

—

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 421

The Union and its employees work for the benefit of its membership including negotiations of wages, benefits and working conditions.

—

United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe

Provide qualified union employees with proper training.

—

United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe

To unite & associate together all people of the plumbing & pipefitting industry for the purpose of mutual assistance & protection, advance the best interest of the trade, secure & improve wages, working conditions through organization,…

—

United Assoc of Journeymen&Apprentices Lu #696

Labor union organization

—

United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices

To provide members a fair wage and safe working conditions, process grievances and protect members from unjust and injurous working conditions through a collective bargaining

—

United Association of Journeymen Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union 166

Labor union

—

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 178

To provide fair wages and benefits through negotiations with contractors under collective bargaining agreements.

—

Int'l Assoc of Bridge Struc Ornamental & Reinforc Iron Workers #84

Local labor union established to promote & protect the interests of its membership with regard to social & working conditions encourage apprenticeship & a higher standard of skill and employment.

—

United Association of Journeymen & 709 Ppf

Unite members into a single organization for the purpose of improving economic advantages through collective bargaining; to promote education and social awareness of its membership.

—

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 428

The organization is a labor union, organized under an International Charter, to provide and promote benefits for its members and represent them in labor negotiations and contract issues.

—

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 1912

The purpose is to promote and protect the interest of our membership, to elevate the moral, intellectual, and social conditions of all working men and women, to assist each other in sickness and health.

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Association of Journeymen Plumbers & Steam Fitters of the United and the most unlike its peers is Richard Brooke Foundation. 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.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 77 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

2%3/158

the rest of the field

13%

240,396/1,819,407

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.

04the grantee network

142 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. 142 of the 174 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

135/142

Grantees still filing

92/142

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$146,877,550Employment$26,572,300Membership Benefit$8,643,333Environment$731,000Public Safety & Disaster$455,000Health$354,168Philanthropy$269,450

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.

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.

International Union of Elevator ConstructorsMD26.1× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: International Union of Elevator Constructors · International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers · International Union of Painters and Allied Trades · Communications Workers of America Afl-Cio Clc · Unite Here · United Food and Commercial Workers International Union · International Assn of Bridge Structural Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers · Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 Association Local 19 · Laborers' International Union of North America · United Steelworkers Intl Group Return · American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees

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 United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe 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

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

22get no government money at all

13report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%

typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

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 camps

funders cluster by geography, not ideology

By state

where grant money is based, and what stays home

State money flows

the interactive map of money crossing state lines