During the last few years, grantmaking classified as benefitting marginalized communities¹ increased, a change largely attributable to an increase in funding for the economically disadvantaged.

As part of its ongoing research into current giving trends, NCRP compared the latest available data on a sample of 906 large grantmakers’ average giving from 2008–2010 to a previous 2004–2006 sample analyzed in NCRP’s Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best.

The findings demonstrate that notably more grant dollars are classified as benefitting underserved populations, and that the number of grantmakers reporting that they make such grants increased. The analysis found that:

• The reported share of grant dollars provided to benefit underserved communities increased from 33 percent to 40 percent. However, if the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the nation’s largest grantmaker, is excluded from the analysis, the increase is much smaller (29 percent to 31 percent).

• Giving to vulnerable communities doubled and comprised greater shares of giving to marginalized communities and of total giving.

• Grantmaking to benefit vulnerable populations increased in all four regions of the country but declined as a share of total giving among community and operating foundations.

• The number of grantmakers providing 50 percent of grant dollars to benefit underserved communities increased to 151 foundations or one in six funders.

THE CASE FOR PRIORITIZING UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIESIn 2009, NCRP’s Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best

encouraged grantmakers to contribute to a strong, participatory democracy that engages all communities by providing at least 50 percent of grant dollars to benefit underserved communities, broadly defined.² For foundations with a mission that might make this goal difficult to achieve, NCRP proposed providing at least 20 percent of grant dollars for the benefit of these communities.³

Intentionally prioritizing vulnerable populations in grantmaking is beneficial for foundations and the communities their grantees serve:

• Improving the conditions of the most marginal among us has a ripple effect that benefits all communities.

• It advances social inclusion and contributes to the public good by empowering those who remain vulnerable.

• It strengthens our democracy by increasing civic engagement among underserved communities.

• It is a means to address persistent, structural problems that keep certain communities from equality of opportunity.

The State of Giving to Underserved CommunitiesBy Niki Jagpal and Kevin Laskowski

THE PHILANTHROPIC LANDSCAPE

AT A GLANCE

$7.8B Average annual funding to benefit vulnerable populations from 2008-2010

40% Share of grant dollars made to benefit underserved communities from 2008-2010

28% Average foundation share of giving to benefit underserved communities

24% Median foundation share of giving to benefit underserved communities

National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy

2

GIVING FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES AS A SHARE OF TOTAL GIVING INCREASED AMONG CORPORATE, FAMILY AND INDEPENDENT FOUNDATIONSGrantmaking to benefit marginalized communities as a share of total giving declined among community and operating foundations. Family foundations are primarily responsible for the overall increase in giving to underserved communities.

FIGURE 2. GIVING TO UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES BY FOUNDATION TYPE

0% 15% 30% 45%

2008-20102004-2006

All 11 Marginalized Communities

Women & Girls

Single Parents

Offenders & Ex-Offenders

Immigrants & Refugees

LGBTQ Populations

Ethnic or Racial Minorities

Economically Disadvantaged

People with Disabilities

Crime or Abuse Victims

People with AIDS

Aging/Elderly/Senior Citizens1.53%1.42%

3.30%1.66%

0.94%1.06%

2.93%3.31%

7.78%8.82%

0.20%0.26%

1.05%1.25%

0.72%0.55%

0.09%0.13%

6.11%7.41%

31.11%19.88%

33.25%

39.59%

FOUNDATION GIVING TO UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIESThe share of grantmaking to benefit the economically disadvantaged increased the most between the two samples, from 20 percent to 31 percent. Giving to racial and ethnic minorities and women and girls increased marginally by 1 percentage point each.

FIGURE 1. GIVING TO MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES AS A SHARE OF TOTAL GIVING

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

2008-20102004-2006

All Sampled Grantmakers

Operating

Independent

Family

Corporate

Community30%

27%

30%34%

36%45%

33%39%

21%25%

33%40%

3The Philanthropic Landscape: The State of Giving to Underserved Communities

Funding to benefit vulnerable populations as a share of total giving increased across the four regions of the nation. This is a positive sign for our nation’s most underserved community members and suggests heightened intentionality in developing this grantmaking strategy sector-wide.

GIVING TO UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES INCREASED MOST IN THE MIDWEST AND WEST

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

2008-20102004-2006

West

South

Northeast

Midwest27%

35%

31%

33%

29%

31%

42%

51%

FIGURE 3. GIVING TO UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES BY FOUNDATION REGION

FUNDING FOR MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES INCREASED MOST AMONG LARGER FUNDERSGrantmaking to benefit vulnerable populations increased across foundations of all sizes in our sample, most notably among foundations giving more than $10,000,000 annually.

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

2008-20102004-2006

More than $10 million

Between $5-10 million

Less than $5 million27%

30%

22%

27%

35%

41%

FIGURE 4. GIVING TO UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES BY FOUNDATION SIZE

The median reported share of giving to underserved communities increased from 20 percent to 24 percent of total giving, indicating more foundations giving at higher levels to marginalized communities.

APPROXIMATELY ONE IN SIX FUNDERS NOW REPORT HALF OF GRANT DOLLARS TO BENEFIT UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES

More than 50%

Between 10-50%

Between 0-10%

Zero

2008-20102004-2006

60%

17%

2%

13%20%

3%

4

59%

26%

FIGURE 5. HOW MUCH GIVING FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES DO GRANTMAKERS PROVIDE?

National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy

4

GIVING FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIESFOUNDATION NAME TYPE¹ STATE AMOUNT PERCENTAGE

The Weberg Trust FM IL $8,291,667 100%

A Glimmer of Hope Foundation FM TX $6,832,728 100%

The Melville Charitable Trust FM MA $5,094,019 98%

The Annie E. Casey Foundation IN MD $87,894,135 98%

NIKE Foundation CS OR $15,089,728 98%

Opus Prize Foundation FM SD $1,175,000 96%

Rosenberg Foundation IN CA $2,118,667 96%

The Corella & Bertram F. Bonner Foundation, Inc. IN NJ $8,736,646 96%

Craig H. Neilsen Foundation FM CA $5,908,489 95%

Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Foundation IN LA $1,216,372 92%

The Retirement Research Foundation IN IL $4,536,815 92%

The John A. Hartford Foundation, Inc. IN NY $15,007,977 92%

The M.A.C. AIDS Fund IN NY $12,170,140 91%

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation FM WA $2,495,139,349 90%

The California Wellness Foundation IN CA $41,359,000 89%

Phoebe Snow Foundation IN CA $17,125,033 89%

Tiger Foundation IN NY $3,170,583 88%

New York Foundation IN NY $3,170,583 87%

Freddie Mac Foundation CS VA $10,143,043 86%

Oberkotter Foundation FM PA $16,679,798 85%

Weingart Foundation IN CA $26,795,090 84%

Marguerite Casey Foundation IN WA $22,607,131 82%

Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, Inc. FM NC $5,673,667 82%

Levi Strauss Foundation CS CA $5,783,500 81%

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina Foundation

CS NC $5,964,069 80%

TABLE 1. LARGEST UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES FUNDERS BY SHARE OF TOTAL GIVING, 2008-2010

LARGEST UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES FUNDERS In our latest sample, 151 grantmakers (17 percent of sampled funders) reported giving at least 50 percent of their grant dollars to benefit underserved communities from 2008–2010. And 525 grantmakers (58 percent of sampled funders) provided at least 20 percent of their grant dollars in this way.

¹ CS=corporate, FM=family, IN=independent

5The Philanthropic Landscape: The State of Giving to Underserved Communities

GIVING FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIESFOUNDATION NAME TYPE¹ STATE AMOUNT PERCENTAGE

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation FM WA $2,495,139,349 90%

Ford Foundation IN NY $328,065,330 71%

The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation FM NE $260,872,753 78%

W.K. Kellogg Foundation IN MI $166,304,199 66%

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation IN NJ $164,837,279 48%

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation IN CA $102,382,988 30%

The California Endowment IN CA $119,525,040 78%

The Rockefeller Foundation IN NY $95,327,991 71%

The Annie E. Casey Foundation IN MD $87,894,135 98%

Walton Family Foundation, Inc. FM AR $85,035,238 36%

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation IN IL $82,371,180 41%

The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Inc. IN MD $76,945,446 77%

The Kresge Foundation IN MI $76,626,372 43%

The Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Inc. CS NC $65,814,388 42%

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation FM CA $64,644,267 24%

Silicon Valley Community Foundation CM CA $58,769,469 25%

Lilly Endowment, Inc. FM IN $57,304,080 22%

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation IN MI $56,803,039 60%

The Wal-Mart Foundation, Inc. CS AR $45,875,360 46%

The California Wellness Foundation IN CA $41,359,000 89%

Citi Foundation CS NY $39,159,634 55%

Open Society Institute OP NY $39,159,634 46%

The Lincy Foundation IN CA $38,348,721 34%

Donald W. Reynolds Foundation IN NV $38,313,698 25%

The New York Community Trust CM NY $36,850,397 32%

TABLE 2: LARGEST UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES FUNDERS BY TOTAL AMOUNT, 2008-2010

¹ CM=community, CS=corporate, FM=family, IN=independent, OP=operating

NCRP worked with the Foundation Center to develop custom datasets using the center’s grants sample data-base, which includes detailed information on all grants of $10,000 or more awarded to organizations by more than 1,300 of the largest foundations in the United States. Grants to individuals are not included in the file.

International grants are included. For community foun-dations, discretionary grants and donor-advised funds are included. The Center’s grants classification system provides much more detail on current giving trends than other data sources and represents approximately half of the foundation grantmaking in the United States.

METHODOLOGY

National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy

6

ABOUT NCRPThe National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) aims to ensure that philanthropy contributes in meaningful ways to the creation of a fair, just and equitable world. We promote philanthropy that serves the public good, is responsive to people and communities with the least wealth and opportunity, and is held accountable to the highest standards of integrity and openness.

For more information, please contact us at: 1331 H Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20005P: 202.387.9177 | F: 202.332.5084 | E-mail: info@ncrp.org www.ncrp.org | blog.ncrp.org

These NCRP data are based on three-year averages, which avoids the influence of potential outliers. The first sample was developed for Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best, using all grantmakers that appeared in all three annual samples from 2004–2006, a group of 806 large grantmakers. A second sample, a group of 906 funders, was developed using 2008–2010 data to assess trends in foundation giving four years later.

Information on giving for underserved groups is based on foundations’ reports of their grants’ beneficiary populations. Foundations noted in the data as giving zero dollars for underserved communities either did not give grants to benefit at least one of the 11 underserved communities mentioned or did not provide enough information to code them as such. NCRP encourages grantmakers to contact the Foundation Center to ensure appropriate classification of their grants.

For more information, please contact research@ncrp.org.

Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

Kevin Laskowski is research and policy associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

The authors would like to extend a special thanks to Steven Lawrence, Director of Research at the Foundation Center, for his review and guidance.

NOTES1. The terms “underserved,” “marginalized” and “vulnerable”

communities and populations are used interchangeably.

2. Niki Jagpal, Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks to

Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact (Washington, D.C.:

National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 2009).

3. NCRP used eleven of the special populations tracked by the

Foundation Center: economically disadvantaged; racial or

ethnic minorities; women and girls; people with AIDS; people

with disabilities; aging, elderly, and senior citizens; immi-

grants and refugees; crime/abuse victims; offenders and ex

offenders; single parents; and LGBTQ people.

4. These figures are based on foundations’ reports of their grants’

beneficiary populations. Foundations noted as giving zero

dollars for underserved communities either did not give grants

to benefit at least one of the 11 underserved communities

mentioned or did not provide enough information to code

them as such. If all grants for underserved communities could

be appropriately coded, these figures might change.