Skip to content
United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No 75 at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No 75

The purpose of the local is to organize, unite, and assist persons for the purpose of improving wages, hours, benefits and working conditions; to obtain the status of exclusive bargaining representative for the persons employed within the local's jurisdiction and to process and resolve grievances and all other rights arising out of such…

$130k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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, FY2019 to 2024.

Health$167kPhilanthropy$80kMembership Benefit$66kFood & Nutrition$16kEmployment$12kHuman Services$10kCivil Rights$6kPublic Safety & Disaster$5k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $41,060, the rows itemized in this filing. The $129,703 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $88,643 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $21k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
$7,500
Median grant
4
States reached
$19M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UFCW LOCAL 75 FOUNDATION$10,000
LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY$10,000
LOVEALL FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN$7,500
SHOOT FOR A CURE$7,060
UFCW LOCAL 951 FOUNDATION$6,500
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, $10k) 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: $10k → 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.
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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$298k · 8 repeat orgs$63k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue -9% since the first grant, against -14% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
10

Total granted

$298k
$63k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-9%
-14%

Still filing today

88%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24
PhilanthropyHealthHuman ServicesMembership BenefitEmploymentFood & NutritionOther
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

  • TL
    THE LOVEALL FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN
    6× · 2019–2024 · $45k · revenue +161%
  • SF
    SHOOT FOR A CURE
    5× · 2019–2024 · $41k · revenue +41%
  • U9
    UFCW 951 MARISA DIDUR MEMBERS HELPING MEMBERS FOUNDATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $13k · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • AE
    AMERICAN EXPRESS FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue -56%
  • SP
    SOUTH PACIFIC CHARITABLE FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue -90%
  • CS
    CAMPBELL SOUP SUPPLY CO
    one grant, 2023 · $6k
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
Unfi Foundation
Philanthropy
2
Western Union Foundation
Education
3
United Public Workers Foundation
Education
4
Ufc Foundation
Philanthropy
5
United Health Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Ufcw Local 152 Health & Welfare Fund

The organization is the trust for a multiemployer welfare benefit plan that covers eligible members and their dependents, established pursuant to various collective bargaining agreements.

—
7
Wal-Mart Foundation
Philanthropy
8
At&T Foundation
Education
9
Union Foundation
—
10
United Charity Foundation
Health
11
United We Care Fund

Fund will seek to support united supermarkets employees who need emergency financial assistance due to unexpected crisis, hardship, or disaster.

Philanthropy
12
The Cigna Group Foundation
Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The United Way of the Greater Dayton Area; the most unlike its peers is American Express Foundation. 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

16 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. 16 of the 18 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/16
Grantees still filing
6/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $94,850 · HealthBLOOD CANCER UNITED INCSHOOT FOR A CURE: $40,690 · HealthSHOOT FOR A CUREUFCW 227 Foundation Inc: $21,000 · HealthUFCW 227 Foundation IncTHE LOVEALL FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN: $45,000 · PhilanthropyTHE LOVEALL FOUNDATIO…UFCW 951 MARISA DIDUR MEMBERS HELPING MEMBERS FOUNDATION: $13,000 · PhilanthropyUFCW 951 MARISA DIDUR…THE KROGER CO FOUNDATION: $5,456 · PhilanthropyTHE KROGER CO FOUNDAT…UNITED WAY OF GREATER TOLEDO: $5,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF GREATER…UFCW LOCAL 75 FOUNDATION INC: $60,600 · Membership BenefitUFCW LOCAL 75 FOUND…THE UNITED WAY OF THE GREATER DAYTON AREA: $13,000 · OtherTHE UNITED WAY …AMERICAN EXPRESS FOUNDATION: $10,250 · OtherAMERICAN EXPRES…DRIVING FOR THE CURE: $10,000 · OtherDRIVING FOR THE…CAMPBELL SOUP SUPPLY CO: $6,000 · OtherCAMPBELL SOUP S…AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR OHIO AFL-CIO: $5,190 · OtherAMERICAN FEDERA…UFCW UNIONS & EMPLOYERS HEALTH & WELFARE PLAN OF CENTRAL OHIO: $5,000 · OtherUFCW UNIONS & E…SOUTH PACIFIC CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Human ServicesAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $5,000 · Human ServicesUnited Latinos of the UFCW Inc: $6,000 · EmploymentFREESTORE FOODBANK INC: $5,000 · Food & Nutrition
Health$156,540Philanthropy$68,456Membership Benefit$60,600Other$49,440Human Services$15,000Employment$6,000Food & Nutrition$5,000

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 budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $94,850 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetUFCW LOCAL 75 FOUNDATION INC: $60,600 over 6y, 11% of budgetTHE LOVEALL FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN: $45,000 over 6y, 1.7% of budgetSHOOT FOR A CURE: $40,690 over 5y, 1.3% of budgetUFCW 227 Foundation Inc: $21,000 over 2y, 8.1% of budgetUFCW 951 MARISA DIDUR MEMBERS HELPING MEMBERS FOUNDATION: $13,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetTHE UNITED WAY OF THE GREATER DAYTON AREA: $13,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN EXPRESS FOUNDATION: $10,250 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetSOUTH PACIFIC CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetUnited Latinos of the UFCW Inc: $6,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetTHE KROGER CO FOUNDATION: $5,456 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR OHIO AFL-CIO: $5,190 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED WAY OF GREATER TOLEDO: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFREESTORE FOODBANK INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No 75 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No 75. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 18 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 United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No 75’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