Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation Dossiers
Plinth

· Public charity

Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council

To promote and protect the interest of the membership, to elevate the moral, intellectual and social conditions of all working men and women and to assist members in sickness and distress.

$1.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
01What you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 62% of MID-AMERICA CARPENTERS REGIONAL COUNCIL’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 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 8 grants below total $1,079,100 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,327,318 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $248,218 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 · $19k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $60k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.0M
$10,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$262M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO$1,000,000
CARPENTERS ASSISTANCE RELIEF PROGRAM$30,000
MUNDELEIN SEMINARY$10,000
WINDY CITY PRODUCTIONS$10,000
HOME BUILDERS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION$10,000
LITTLE VILLAGE 26TH STREET AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC$7,600
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MISSOURI$6,000
CHAMPAIGN PARK DISTRICT$5,500
02The need
03

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, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, 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.

area typical 11%CONSTRUCTION FORUM: $7k → 21%0%20%40%50%more need →
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

IL
IA
CA
MO
VA
NC
DC
LA

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.

27%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$868k · 12 repeat orgs$2.4M to everyone else

12 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
22

Total granted

$868k
$1.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+6%
+11%

Still filing today

92%
68%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 1% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.1M 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 ImprovementArts & CulturePhilanthropyEmploymentHousing & ShelterHuman ServicesOther

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

  • CF
    CHICAGO FEDERATION OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL UNION COUNCIL
    3× · 2017–2020 · $112k · revenue +6%
  • CH
    CARPENTERS HELPING HANDS INC
    2× · 2020–2024 · $93k · revenue +221%
  • CW
    CHICAGO WOMEN IN TRADES
    2× · 2018–2019 · $30k · revenue +199%

Funded once

  • AF
    ALL FOR JUSTICE
    one grant, 2023 · $700k
  • VY
    VOTE YES FOR WORKERS RIGHTS
    one grant, 2023 · $350k
  • II
    INNOVATION ILLINOIS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
    one grant, 2017 · $50k

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.

1
Chicagoland Associated General Contractors

To deliver exceptional value to our members through industry leadership, superior services, and innovative programs.

—
2
Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce

The chicagoland chamber of commerce combines the power of people, with our legacy of leadership and business advocacy, to drive a dynamic economy. we focus on delivering value for our members, making chicagoland a world-class place to live…

—
3
Chicago Municipal Employee's Credit Union

To give members the ability to control their financial destiny by providing members with the means to satisfy their needs for financial services in a comfortable family-like environment. in doing so, the credit union strives to maintain…

—
4
West Central Building and Construction Trades Council

Betterment of the wage earners working condition

Community Improvement
5
Cook County Chamber
Philanthropy
6
Fca of Illinois

A union painting, glazing, and drywall taping contractors association dedicated to improving the industry through negotiating and implementing a collective bargaining agreement, promoting safety, education, and training to its members,…

Community Improvement
7
St Louis Council of Construction Consumers

The slc3 is a community of design and construction industry professionals with a common interest in the betterment of our region through prioritizing innovation, continuing education, equity empowerment and all-inclusive workforce…

Community Improvement
8
Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau

The chicago convention and tourism bureau is the premier sales and marketing organization that promotes chicago's world-class assets to global leisure travel and convention business to ensure the economic vitality of the city and its…

—
9
Central Midwest Regional Council of Carpenters

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

—
10
The Associated General Contractors Industry Advancement Fund

Primary purpose is the advancement of heavy highway industry in the state of illinois.

Employment
11
Laborers' Int'l Union of North America District Council of Chicago

To promote unity of action in dealing with employers and to coordinate and consolidate the activities of its various affiliated local unions so they can work in a harmonious and united way.

—
12
International Union of Operating Engineers 150

Labor organization representing members in a variety of industries including construction, construction material production, steel mill services/slag processing, landscaping and many others principally in illinois, indiana and iowa. the…

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc and the most unlike its peers is Chicagoland Sports Hall of Fame. 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyAffordable Housing Developm…Military Veterans SupportAffordable Housing Construc…Faith-Based Liberal Arts Co…Senior Support Services
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 39 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number18%6%<5yr13%3%5–10yr18%16%10–20yr15%22%20–35yr14%16%35–55yr22%38%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value18%63%<5yr13%1%5–10yr18%3%10–20yr15%8%20–35yr14%10%35–55yr22%16%55yr+

The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 63% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
3%1/37
the rest of the field
12%
8,890/72,322

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

32 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. 32 of the 40 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
31/32
Grantees still filing
19/32
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

ALL FOR JUSTICE — $700,000 · OtherALL FOR JUSTICESTRATEGIC VICTORY FUND — $475,000 · OtherSTRATEGIC VICTORY FUNDVOTE YES FOR WORKERS RIGHTS — $350,000 · OtherVOTE YES FOR WORKERS RIGHTSCHICAGO FEDERATION OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL UNION COUNCIL — $111,900 · OtherCHICAGO FEDERATION OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL UNION COUNCILCARPENTERS HELPING HANDS INC — $93,000 · Other+21 more — $322,965 · Other+21 moreDEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO — $1,000,000 · Community ImprovementDEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO+4 more — $52,500 · Community ImprovementNATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR FAIR CONTRACTING — $45,000 · EmploymentFIGHT BACK FUND — $25,000 · EmploymentCHICAGOLAND SPORTS HALL OF FAME — $20,000 · Arts & CultureNAVY PIER INC — $10,000 · Arts & CultureWINDY CITY PRODUCTIONS — $10,000 · Arts & CultureCENTRAL SOUTH CARPENTERS REGIONAL COUNCIL RELIEF FUND INC — $25,000 · Public Safety & DisasterTHE HOME BUILDERS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION — $10,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO INC — $5,500 · PhilanthropyGENESIS HEALTH SERVICES FOUNDATION — $11,000 · Health
Other$2,052,865Community Improvement$1,052,500Employment$70,000Arts & Culture$40,000Public Safety & Disaster$25,000Philanthropy$15,500Health$11,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetSTRATEGIC VICTORY FUND — $475,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetCHICAGO FEDERATION OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL UNION COUNCIL — $111,900 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetCARPENTERS HELPING HANDS INC — $93,000 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetNATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR FAIR CONTRACTING — $45,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetCHICAGO WOMEN IN TRADES — $30,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetCARPENTERS ASSISTANCE RELIEF PROGAM — $30,000 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetCENTRAL SOUTH CARPENTERS REGIONAL COUNCIL RELIEF FUND INC — $25,000 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetFIGHT BACK FUND — $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS COUNCIL — $23,060 over 3y, 3.5% of budgetAMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS — $21,800 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS ILLINOIS — $20,625 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCHICAGOLAND SPORTS HALL OF FAME — $20,000 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MISSOURI — $16,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetHOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF STL E-MO — $15,395 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetGENESIS HEALTH SERVICES FOUNDATION — $11,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNAVY PIER INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSpecial Children's Charities — $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetWINDY CITY PRODUCTIONS — $10,000 over 1y, 26% of budgetMETROPOLITAN PLANNING COUNCIL — $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ST LOUIS — $8,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMISSOURI CHAMBER FOUNDATION — $7,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCONSTRUCTION FORUM — $7,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetST AMBROSE UNIVERSITY — $7,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCatholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago — $6,875 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetILLINOIS ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE — $6,500 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetKANSAS CITY REGIONAL DESTINATION DEVELOP MENT FOUNDATION — $6,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetConcrete Contractors Association Inc — $5,860 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetUNITED WAY OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO INC — $5,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
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.

Laborers' Int'L Union…Chicago Federation of…Charities Aid Foundat…
Laborers' Int'L Union of North America District Council of ChicagoIL13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Laborers' Int'L Union of North America District Council of Chicago · Chicago Federation of Labor and Industrial Union Council · Charities Aid Foundation America

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 Mid-America Carpenters Regional 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
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 40 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    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