Though operating budgets continue to increase across the field – the median increase among Columbus Survey participants was 5.7 percent over FY18 levels – there was a slight decrease in the number of respondents who reported operating expenses in excess of revenues for the second consecutive year – 24 percent, down from 26 percent in FY18.

It is typical for two-thirds of operating expenses to go toward staff capacity, regardless of the size of the community foundation.

Averages were used to total 100%. (n=209)

Administrative fees charged for the management of donor funds continue to be the main driver of community foundation operating revenues. On average, Columbus Survey participants earn 70 percent of their operating revenues from these fees. There will, however, be differences in the extent to which community foundations of different sizes depend on different sources of revenue.

More than two-thirds of those respondents who share what steps they take to address "inactive" DAFs said that they, at minimum, notify the DAF holder to activate the fund by recommending a grant, but fewer community foundations take additional action beyond that initial step. When survey respondents were offered the opportunity to share other actions they take to address an inactive DAF, virtually all stated that they execute some combination of the steps listed per the community foundation's fund agreement.

Nearly all respondents said that they consider a DAF to be inactive if no grant is made from the fund within five years, with three-quarters considering a DAF to be inactive if it hasn't awarded a grant within three years. Although few in number, there were instances of the community foundation considering a DAF to be dormant after 10 or more years of inactivity, citing the potential for the donor to establish the fund with the intention of building its balance to activate the fund toward more impactful grantmaking in the future. (n=171)

More than half of all Columbus Survey respondents reported the existence of a policy in place to address the "dormancy" of DAFs, typically defined by the passage of a predefined period of time after which no grants were awarded from the fund. (n=238)

DAFs at community foundations tend to be highly active grantmaking vehicles; close to half (48 percent) of all survey respondents reported double-digit distribution rates from their DAFs in FY19. With typically higher proportions of pass-through funds available for granting, larger community foundations tend to report higher distribution rates overall.

Sample size for DAF distribution rates are slightly smaller (n=213) than for the whole foundation (n=234).

The "flow rate" of DAFs compares a given year's grantmaking total with its gift total, dividing grants by gifts. This metric may help capture the activity of donors who contribute to their DAF and grant from it that same year. High median DAF flow rates in every asset cohort suggest a high rate of overall grantmaking that keeps pace with fundraising.

Total reported DAF assets grew by five percent over the reported FY18 total, even as fewer community foundations participated in the FY19 survey, reflecting the high rate of growth for assets across the field. (n=236)

Larger community foundations tend to manage more DAFs and carry more DAF assets than their smaller counterparts, as they seek to grow their donor bases and provide services to those donors to facilitate their participation in locally-focused philanthropy.

Averages were used to total 100 percent. (n=209)