Survey on Growing Local Philanthropy:
Rationale and Methodology
Survey objectives
In recent years, observers have noticed what appear to be two growing trends among community foundations. The first is the apparent growth of community foundations and community foundation endowments that are focused on rural areas and issues. The second is the emergence of geographic component funds, or GCFs—that is, funds within "lead" community foundations that are dedicated to serving specific geographic areas or communities, and that typically include local decision making and/or operating structures.
At present, scant reliable nationwide data exists about these geographically targeted funds, and certainly no "roadmap" shows how to establish, organize and sustain them. No documentation exists to answer even the most basic questions, such as:
- How many GCFs currently exist?
- What types of community foundations house them?
- How many are contemplated for the future?
- How and why do lead foundations decide to establish geographic component funds?
- How are GCFs staffed?
- How does their coverage of rural and metropolitan areas compare?
- How are GCFs organized?
- What is their overall and average asset value?
CSG's Growing Local Philanthropy survey is intended as a first step in addressing these questions, documenting current status and trends related to GCFs and, more broadly, assessing how these funds affect the culture of philanthropy in their communities.
Key definition
Geographic component fund (GCF) is our universal term for a fund (or collection of funds) established under the umbrella of a lead community foundation that is specified to a geographic area and 'governed' in some way by people from that area. In other words, 'geographic component fund' is simply our term for a common phenomenon that goes by many names. Some call them affiliates. Others call them area funds. Still others call them divisions.
Survey methods and procedures
This survey was conducted by internet between August 11 and September 17, 2004 of community foundations in the United States. CSG contacted the entire universe of identified community foundations, which numbered 668 at the time of the survey, by email and then followed up by U.S. post and telephone to encourage cooperation and increase the survey completion rate. As a result of these pull efforts, of the 668 community foundations invited to participate, 241 responded—a completion rate of 36%.
The complete survey questionnaire is still available online for review. Since a main objective of this research was to spotlight the spread and characteristics of geographic component funds, the foundations reporting that they do not have GCFs or do not have one yet (87 of the 241, or 36% of them) were asked a shorter set of questions than the others. As a result, much of the report is based on the subsample of 154 responding foundations that have geographic component funds.
The data presented in this report are not weighted. Adjusting via weighting was considered but rejected because the research is regarded as exploratory, and because either it was unclear which available variables would be the best basis for weighting or the relevant variable information simply did not exist. Nevertheless, with a few exceptions (noted in the Profile of Responding Community Foundations section), the data are believed to be reasonably representative of community foundations in the United States.
For more information on the methodology, see the full survey findings report.
Response pool vital statistics
Total number of responses:
- 241 (36% of 668 foundations to whom we mailed the survey)
Geographic distribution:
- Northeast: 16%
- Midwest: 37%
- South: 29%
- West: 18%
- U.S. Territory: 1 community foundation
Service area of response pool:
- Multiple counties: 51%
- Individual counties: 32%
- Metropolitan area: 8%
- Entire state: 6%
- Single city or town: 4%
- Multiple states: 3% (generally meaning only parts of more than one state)
- Parts of individual counties only: 2%
- "Other": 3%
Total assets of response pool:
- Mean: $87 million
(compared to $46 million for all community foundations) - Median: $19 million
(compared to $7 million for all community foundations)
Endowed assets of response pool:
- Mean: $44 million
- Median: $12 million
Organizational age of response pool:
- <10 years: 23%
- 10-29 years: 49%
- ≥30 years: 28%
Rural coverage:
- Service area includes at least some rural area: 90%
- Actively serve at least some of their rural area: 81%
Rural Development Philanthropy Learning Learning Network
The Aspen Institute
One Dupont Circle NW
Suite 700Washington DC 20036
Ph. 202.736.5804Fx. 202.293.0525
rdpinfo@aspencsg.orgwww.aspencsg.org/rdp