In general, economies of scale allow for community foundations to achieve relatively lower expense-to-asset ratios, though such a metric is heavily dependent on the operating model of the individual foundation. As those in the field move beyond simply being a grantmaker, we often see a fluctuation in this metric due to the need for individual community foundations to subsidize activities such as community leadership. (n=238)

The presence of specialized staff at larger community foundations, who generally possess relatively complex operating models, is reflected in the management of fewer funds per FTE. (n=198)

While the basic community foundation operating model is supported mainly by administrative fees on funds, differences in the revenue mix do emerge among foundations of different sizes. Emerging and smaller community foundations rely more heavily on outside fundraising and distributions from endowments/reserves to support operations. The continued diversification of community foundation offerings has not, to this point, led to a significant shift in one's typical revenue mix.

As community foundation asset size as well as the proportion of those assets in non-endowed assets grows, so too do foundation-wide distribution rates. Additionally, donor-advised funds are seen as more active funding vehicles. It is important to specifically watch the growth of donor-advised and discretionary funds over time. DAFs are a widely-used donor vehicle and one of the fastest growing, while discretionary funds ultimately provide flexibility to a community foundation.

Donor-advised funds tend to make up a more significant portion of assets in larger community foundations, which, while also having a higher proportion of non-endowed assets, could be reflective of their ability to provide flexible grantmaking options to their donors.

Averages were used to total 100%.
(n=238)

Smaller community foundations tend to have a much higher proportion of endowed assets than their larger counterparts.

Median percentages for the proportion of assets that are endowed and non-endowed may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
(n=229)

Focusing on asset, gift, and grant totals for the Top 100 largest community foundations allows for a consistent sample which remains reflective of overall field growth. A significant increase in overall gift and grant activity was observed in 2016, while total assets saw a higher rate of growth than from 2014-2015.

Data reflects the largest 100 community foundations by asset size as of FY2015 and includes those within the cohort whose data are available for all years represented. (n=95)

The concentration of high net worth donors in large urban centers is reflected in per capita gift and grant totals at larger community foundations. (n=246)

Median change in grants: 7%

The proportion of respondents who experienced a dramatic decrease in gifts doubled from 2015, though as in previous years, gift change rates remain difficult to predict. Grants are predictably more stable, driven by fund holders and in keeping with the community foundation’s mission and payout goals. More than half of all survey respondents saw grantmaking totals change by less than 20%.