Philanthropy in the Southeast Region · 2016 EditionSouthern Trends Report

1 | SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016

Introduction | Southern Trends Report 2016Southern Philanthropy – and the region it serves – is rapidly changing. We’ve all known this for some time, but describing its exact nature can sometimes be difficult. When we talk about “the currents of change,” what do we mean?

This report represents a major step toward answering that question. As called for in our Strategic Plan, SECF has committed itself to conducting research on giving trends across our region. Working in partnership with the Foundation Center, we have done exactly that, producing a thorough analysis of the state of Southern Philanthropy.

Why is this important? As a regional association, SECF prides itself on its ability to provide a Southern perspective on philanthropy’s work. The American South has the strongest regional identity in the country. This is the product of more than a shared history and culture – though both are important. The South is also demographically unique, with patterns of growth, migration and remigration that set it apart from the rest of the country. As grantmakers, we also confront unique regional disparities in education, health care and economic opportunity.

We know a lot about the region we serve. Now, it is essential that we know more about the work we do to support it. SECF is proud to lead the way in providing this information. I hope it places your own work in greater context and provides guidance for the future.

I want to thank a few individuals whose input helped make this report possible: Mason Rummel (James Graham Brown Foundation), Pete Bird (The Frist Foundation), Erik Johnson (Robert W. Woodruff Foundation), Rhett Mabry (The Duke Endowment) and Mary Judson (The Goizueta Foundation). Their continual support and advice helped make this landmark report a reality!

Finally, I am excited to say this is just the start – the Southern Trends Report will be issued annually, growing richer and more useful with each passing year! The South is a region fond of tradition – with the release of this report, I believe we are kicking off a new one!

Warmest regards,

Janine LeePresident & CEO

Statement of IntentThe Southeastern Council of Foundations strives to support Members and grantmakers with access to education, resources and networking by serving as a convener and facilitator, offering a diverse range of voices and perspectives. We do not endorse colleague organization views, but rather aim to provide access to a broad range of information and resources to increase grantmaking impact and develop philanthropic leaders throughout the region.

SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016 | 2

From 2003-2013, nearly a quarter of the grant dollars awarded by Southeastern foundations in Foundation Center’s grants sample were awarded in the field of education. Health was the second-highest recipient of foundation funding at 14 percent, followed closely by arts and culture and human services. The greatest number of grants were awarded in the human services field, suggesting that Southeastern foundations tend to award a larger number of smaller grants to recipients in that subject area.

For updated data on foundation giving in the Southeast region, visit: secftrendsreport.foundationcenter.org

Giving by Subject Category by Southeastern Foundations, 2003-2013

% of Grant Dollars % of Number of Grants

1% | $265,792,768

1% | $163,430,663

1% | $409,980,803

2% | $658,846,006

2% | $745,652,012

3% | $822,008,956

3% | $849,974,787

3% | $1,072,040,888

3% | $1,088,437,680

4% | $1,323,412,304

5% | $1,727,743,422

5% | $1,492,882,2835% | 11,955 grants

5% | 12,512 grants

7% | $2,133,301,429

Source: Foundation Center, 2016. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100. Based on all grants of $10,000 or more awarded by Southeastern foundations included in the FC1000 - a sample of the 1,000 largest U.S. foundations. Grants data for 2014 was not yet complete at date of publication. For community foundations, only discretionary grants are included. Does not include grants to individuals. Grants may benefit multiple subjects, and may therefore be counted more than once.

11% | $3,474,166,988

11% | $3,639,511,062

14% | $4,640,318,242

24% | $7,886,865,223

1% | 1,414 grants

1% | 1,738 grants

1% | 3,460 grants

3% | 6,689 grants

3% | 7,777 grants

1% | 3,585 grants

2% | 5,792 grants

2% | 5,986 grants

1% | 3,094 grants

6% | 1,6961 grants

20% | 53,315 grants

12% | 30,471 grants

9% | 24,273 grants

19% | 50,517 grants

9% | 24,312 grants

2016 edition

Education

Health

Arts and Culture

Human Services

Community and Economic Development

Environment and Animals

Philanthropy and Nonprofit Management

Religion

International Relations

Information and Communications

Public Affairs

Science and Engineering

Public Safety

Sports and Recreation

Human Rights

Social Sciences

Agriculture, Fishing, and Forestry

From 2003-2013, nearly a quarter of the grant dollars awarded by Southeastern foundations in Foundation Center’s grants sample were awarded in the field of education. Health was the second-highest recipient of foundation funding at 14 percent, followed closely by arts and culture and human services. The greatest number of grants were awarded in the human services field, suggesting that Southeastern foundations tend to award a larger number of smaller grants to recipients in that subject area.

For updated data on foundation giving in the Southeast region, visit: secftrendsreport.foundationcenter.org

Giving by Subject Category by Southeastern Foundations, 2003-2013

% of Grant Dollars % of Number of Grants

1% | $265,792,768

1% | $163,430,663

1% | $409,980,803

2% | $658,846,006

2% | $745,652,012

3% | $822,008,956

3% | $849,974,787

3% | $1,072,040,888

3% | $1,088,437,680

4% | $1,323,412,304

5% | $1,727,743,422

5% | $1,492,882,2835% | 11,955 grants

5% | 12,512 grants

7% | $2,133,301,429

Source: Foundation Center, 2016. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100. Based on all grants of $10,000 or more awarded by Southeastern foundations included in the FC1000 - a sample of the 1,000 largest U.S. foundations. Grants data for 2014 was not yet complete at date of publication. For community foundations, only discretionary grants are included. Does not include grants to individuals. Grants may benefit multiple subjects, and may therefore be counted more than once.

11% | $3,474,166,988

11% | $3,639,511,062

14% | $4,640,318,242

24% | $7,886,865,223

1% | 1,414 grants

1% | 1,738 grants

1% | 3,460 grants

3% | 6,689 grants

3% | 7,777 grants

1% | 3,585 grants

2% | 5,792 grants

2% | 5,986 grants

1% | 3,094 grants

6% | 1,6961 grants

20% | 53,315 grants

12% | 30,471 grants

9% | 24,273 grants

19% | 50,517 grants

9% | 24,312 grants

2016 edition

Education

Health

Arts and Culture

Human Services

Community and Economic Development

Environment and Animals

Philanthropy and Nonprofit Management

Religion

International Relations

Information and Communications

Public Affairs

Science and Engineering

Public Safety

Sports and Recreation

Human Rights

Social Sciences

Agriculture, Fishing, and Forestry

For updated data on foundation giving in the Southeast region, visit:secftrendsreport.foundationcenter.org

Which of the following issues do you think present the greatest challenges for the geographic area in which you make grants?

Is your grantmaking more reactive or more proactive?

Mostly Reactive (1-2)Moderately Reactive (3-5) Moderately Proactive (6-8)Mostly Proactive (9-10)

Risk Averse (1-3)Somewhat Risk Tolerant (4-7)Mostly Risk Tolerant (8-10)

% of Respondents% of Respondents

What is your foundation’s tolerance for risk in its grantmaking?

SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016

Grantmaking Practices of Southeastern FoundationsAs part of a 2016 membership market analysis, the Southeastern Council of Foundations solicited responses to a set of questions regarding organizations’ grantmaking practices. When asked to describe their grantmaking as reactive or proactive on a scale from one to ten, 44 percent ranked their approach as either mostly reactive or moderately reactive. A slight majority, 56 percent, ranked their approach as moderately proactive or mostly proactive.

Corporate funders were among the most likely to rank their approach as proactive.

Respondents were next asked to rank their tolerance for risk in their grantmaking. Perhaps surprisingly, only 18 percent self-reported as being risk averse, while the remaining 82 percent ranked their approach as either somewhat risk tolerant or mostly risk tolerant. The survey also asked respondents to rank the most pressing

challenges for the communities in which they provide funding. Three of the top five issues ranked by respondents concerned either education or child development. Mental health ranked third in importance, while job training and workforce development came fourth. Less urgent issues included a number of environmental concerns, as well as immigration and refugee services and support for arts and culture.

Most Challenging Issues Less Challenging Issues

1. Public K-12 education effectiveness

2. Early childhood education availability and quality

3. Mental and behavioral health supports

4. Job training and workforce development

5. Child welfare

1. Immigration and refugee services

2. Urban parks and greenspace

3. Water availability and water quality

4. Arts and culture funding

5. Land conservation

14%

30% 39%

17% 18%

40%

42%

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Reactive is defined as primarily responding to funding requests initiated by grantseeking organizations, while proactive assumes that the grantmaking foundation actively develops its own priorities and initiatives before seeking proposals.

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Respondents were asked to rank a listing of 24 preselected issue areas on a scale of 1 to 10, from least urgent to most urgent.

3 | SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016

Which of the following issues do you think present the greatest challenges for the geographic area in which you make grants?

Is your grantmaking more reactive or more proactive?

Mostly Reactive (1-2)Moderately Reactive (3-5) Moderately Proactive (6-8)Mostly Proactive (9-10)

Risk Averse (1-3)Somewhat Risk Tolerant (4-7)Mostly Risk Tolerant (8-10)

% of Respondents% of Respondents

What is your foundation’s tolerance for risk in its grantmaking?

SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016

Grantmaking Practices of Southeastern FoundationsAs part of a 2016 membership market analysis, the Southeastern Council of Foundations solicited responses to a set of questions regarding organizations’ grantmaking practices. When asked to describe their grantmaking as reactive or proactive on a scale from one to ten, 44 percent ranked their approach as either mostly reactive or moderately reactive. A slight majority, 56 percent, ranked their approach as moderately proactive or mostly proactive.

Corporate funders were among the most likely to rank their approach as proactive.

Respondents were next asked to rank their tolerance for risk in their grantmaking. Perhaps surprisingly, only 18 percent self-reported as being risk averse, while the remaining 82 percent ranked their approach as either somewhat risk tolerant or mostly risk tolerant. The survey also asked respondents to rank the most pressing

challenges for the communities in which they provide funding. Three of the top five issues ranked by respondents concerned either education or child development. Mental health ranked third in importance, while job training and workforce development came fourth. Less urgent issues included a number of environmental concerns, as well as immigration and refugee services and support for arts and culture.

Most Challenging Issues Less Challenging Issues

1. Public K-12 education effectiveness

2. Early childhood education availability and quality

3. Mental and behavioral health supports

4. Job training and workforce development

5. Child welfare

1. Immigration and refugee services

2. Urban parks and greenspace

3. Water availability and water quality

4. Arts and culture funding

5. Land conservation

14%

30% 39%

17% 18%

40%

42%

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Reactive is defined as primarily responding to funding requests initiated by grantseeking organizations, while proactive assumes that the grantmaking foundation actively develops its own priorities and initiatives before seeking proposals.

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Respondents were asked to rank a listing of 24 preselected issue areas on a scale of 1 to 10, from least urgent to most urgent.

Which of the following issues do you think present the greatest challenges for the geographic area in which you make grants?

Is your grantmaking more reactive or more proactive?

Mostly Reactive (1-2)Moderately Reactive (3-5) Moderately Proactive (6-8)Mostly Proactive (9-10)

Risk Averse (1-3)Somewhat Risk Tolerant (4-7)Mostly Risk Tolerant (8-10)

% of Respondents% of Respondents

What is your foundation’s tolerance for risk in its grantmaking?

SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016

Grantmaking Practices of Southeastern FoundationsAs part of a 2016 membership market analysis, the Southeastern Council of Foundations solicited responses to a set of questions regarding organizations’ grantmaking practices. When asked to describe their grantmaking as reactive or proactive on a scale from one to ten, 44 percent ranked their approach as either mostly reactive or moderately reactive. A slight majority, 56 percent, ranked their approach as moderately proactive or mostly proactive.

Corporate funders were among the most likely to rank their approach as proactive.

Respondents were next asked to rank their tolerance for risk in their grantmaking. Perhaps surprisingly, only 18 percent self-reported as being risk averse, while the remaining 82 percent ranked their approach as either somewhat risk tolerant or mostly risk tolerant. The survey also asked respondents to rank the most pressing

challenges for the communities in which they provide funding. Three of the top five issues ranked by respondents concerned either education or child development. Mental health ranked third in importance, while job training and workforce development came fourth. Less urgent issues included a number of environmental concerns, as well as immigration and refugee services and support for arts and culture.

Most Challenging Issues Less Challenging Issues

1. Public K-12 education effectiveness

2. Early childhood education availability and quality

3. Mental and behavioral health supports

4. Job training and workforce development

5. Child welfare

1. Immigration and refugee services

2. Urban parks and greenspace

3. Water availability and water quality

4. Arts and culture funding

5. Land conservation

14%

30% 39%

17% 18%

40%

42%

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Reactive is defined as primarily responding to funding requests initiated by grantseeking organizations, while proactive assumes that the grantmaking foundation actively develops its own priorities and initiatives before seeking proposals.

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Respondents were asked to rank a listing of 24 preselected issue areas on a scale of 1 to 10, from least urgent to most urgent.

Which of the following issues do you think present the greatest challenges for the geographic area in which you make grants?

Is your grantmaking more reactive or more proactive?

Mostly Reactive (1-2)Moderately Reactive (3-5) Moderately Proactive (6-8)Mostly Proactive (9-10)

Risk Averse (1-3)Somewhat Risk Tolerant (4-7)Mostly Risk Tolerant (8-10)

% of Respondents% of Respondents

What is your foundation’s tolerance for risk in its grantmaking?

SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016

Grantmaking Practices of Southeastern FoundationsAs part of a 2016 membership market analysis, the Southeastern Council of Foundations solicited responses to a set of questions regarding organizations’ grantmaking practices. When asked to describe their grantmaking as reactive or proactive on a scale from one to ten, 44 percent ranked their approach as either mostly reactive or moderately reactive. A slight majority, 56 percent, ranked their approach as moderately proactive or mostly proactive.

Corporate funders were among the most likely to rank their approach as proactive.

Respondents were next asked to rank their tolerance for risk in their grantmaking. Perhaps surprisingly, only 18 percent self-reported as being risk averse, while the remaining 82 percent ranked their approach as either somewhat risk tolerant or mostly risk tolerant. The survey also asked respondents to rank the most pressing

challenges for the communities in which they provide funding. Three of the top five issues ranked by respondents concerned either education or child development. Mental health ranked third in importance, while job training and workforce development came fourth. Less urgent issues included a number of environmental concerns, as well as immigration and refugee services and support for arts and culture.

Most Challenging Issues Less Challenging Issues

1. Public K-12 education effectiveness

2. Early childhood education availability and quality

3. Mental and behavioral health supports

4. Job training and workforce development

5. Child welfare

1. Immigration and refugee services

2. Urban parks and greenspace

3. Water availability and water quality

4. Arts and culture funding

5. Land conservation

14%

30% 39%

17% 18%

40%

42%

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Reactive is defined as primarily responding to funding requests initiated by grantseeking organizations, while proactive assumes that the grantmaking foundation actively develops its own priorities and initiatives before seeking proposals.

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Respondents were asked to rank a listing of 24 preselected issue areas on a scale of 1 to 10, from least urgent to most urgent.

Which of the following issues do you think present the greatest challenges for the geographic area in which you make grants?

Is your grantmaking more reactive or more proactive?

Mostly Reactive (1-2)Moderately Reactive (3-5) Moderately Proactive (6-8)Mostly Proactive (9-10)

Risk Averse (1-3)Somewhat Risk Tolerant (4-7)Mostly Risk Tolerant (8-10)

% of Respondents% of Respondents

What is your foundation’s tolerance for risk in its grantmaking?

SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016

Grantmaking Practices of Southeastern FoundationsAs part of a 2016 membership market analysis, the Southeastern Council of Foundations solicited responses to a set of questions regarding organizations’ grantmaking practices. When asked to describe their grantmaking as reactive or proactive on a scale from one to ten, 44 percent ranked their approach as either mostly reactive or moderately reactive. A slight majority, 56 percent, ranked their approach as moderately proactive or mostly proactive.

Corporate funders were among the most likely to rank their approach as proactive.

Respondents were next asked to rank their tolerance for risk in their grantmaking. Perhaps surprisingly, only 18 percent self-reported as being risk averse, while the remaining 82 percent ranked their approach as either somewhat risk tolerant or mostly risk tolerant. The survey also asked respondents to rank the most pressing

challenges for the communities in which they provide funding. Three of the top five issues ranked by respondents concerned either education or child development. Mental health ranked third in importance, while job training and workforce development came fourth. Less urgent issues included a number of environmental concerns, as well as immigration and refugee services and support for arts and culture.

Most Challenging Issues Less Challenging Issues

1. Public K-12 education effectiveness

2. Early childhood education availability and quality

3. Mental and behavioral health supports

4. Job training and workforce development

5. Child welfare

1. Immigration and refugee services

2. Urban parks and greenspace

3. Water availability and water quality

4. Arts and culture funding

5. Land conservation

14%

30% 39%

17% 18%

40%

42%

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Reactive is defined as primarily responding to funding requests initiated by grantseeking organizations, while proactive assumes that the grantmaking foundation actively develops its own priorities and initiatives before seeking proposals.

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Respondents were asked to rank a listing of 24 preselected issue areas on a scale of 1 to 10, from least urgent to most urgent.

Which of the following issues do you think present the greatest challenges for the geographic area in which you make grants?

Is your grantmaking more reactive or more proactive?

Mostly Reactive (1-2)Moderately Reactive (3-5) Moderately Proactive (6-8)Mostly Proactive (9-10)

Risk Averse (1-3)Somewhat Risk Tolerant (4-7)Mostly Risk Tolerant (8-10)

% of Respondents% of Respondents

What is your foundation’s tolerance for risk in its grantmaking?

SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016

Grantmaking Practices of Southeastern FoundationsAs part of a 2016 membership market analysis, the Southeastern Council of Foundations solicited responses to a set of questions regarding organizations’ grantmaking practices. When asked to describe their grantmaking as reactive or proactive on a scale from one to ten, 44 percent ranked their approach as either mostly reactive or moderately reactive. A slight majority, 56 percent, ranked their approach as moderately proactive or mostly proactive.

Corporate funders were among the most likely to rank their approach as proactive.

Respondents were next asked to rank their tolerance for risk in their grantmaking. Perhaps surprisingly, only 18 percent self-reported as being risk averse, while the remaining 82 percent ranked their approach as either somewhat risk tolerant or mostly risk tolerant. The survey also asked respondents to rank the most pressing

challenges for the communities in which they provide funding. Three of the top five issues ranked by respondents concerned either education or child development. Mental health ranked third in importance, while job training and workforce development came fourth. Less urgent issues included a number of environmental concerns, as well as immigration and refugee services and support for arts and culture.

Most Challenging Issues Less Challenging Issues

1. Public K-12 education effectiveness

2. Early childhood education availability and quality

3. Mental and behavioral health supports

4. Job training and workforce development

5. Child welfare

1. Immigration and refugee services

2. Urban parks and greenspace

3. Water availability and water quality

4. Arts and culture funding

5. Land conservation

14%

30% 39%

17% 18%

40%

42%

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Reactive is defined as primarily responding to funding requests initiated by grantseeking organizations, while proactive assumes that the grantmaking foundation actively develops its own priorities and initiatives before seeking proposals.

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Respondents were asked to rank a listing of 24 preselected issue areas on a scale of 1 to 10, from least urgent to most urgent.

SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016 | 4SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016

Key Factors in Grant Success or FailureSurvey questions also addressed Southeastern grantmakers’ perceptions of grant success and failure. When asked what portion of their grant recipients fail to achieve their intended outcomes, more than three quarters of respondents answered that less than 25 percent of their grants fail. Only a small sliver, 6 percent, reported having more than a quarter of their grants fail to reach their goals. Respondents were then asked in a set of open-ended questions to describe their experience with a grant that had failed and another instance that had ended in relative success. Among the factors discussed in relation to grant failure, leadership was mentioned most, with lack of due diligence and inadequate capacity also ranking high. Collaboration and strong program models were by far the leading factors mentioned in relation to grant success.

Leadership with vision is key to every grant we make. It's now one of the first things we look at. Lack of leadership was a recipe for failure.”

“

“Our best grants are the ones where we have a collaborative relationship with the nonprofit partner.”

What portion of your foundation’s grantsfail to achieve their intended outcomes?

Factors Leading to Failure

Factors Leading to Success

Leadership/Staffing ConcernsInsufficient Due Diligence by Funder

Inadequate CapacityLack of Accountability/Evaluation

Dependency on Other Partners/ResourcesPoor Planning/Implementation

Unrealistic Program ExpectationsGrantee Did Not Meet Commitments

Lack of Community EngagementProject Not SustainableFinancial Improprieties

Grant Not Scaled to Problem/NeedOrganizational FailureOther/Miscellaneous

Collaboration/PartnershipSuccessful Program Model

Strong LeadershipAbility to Meet Community Need

Accountability/OutcomesLong-Term Investment

Well-Developed Strategic PlanClear Expectations

Innovative ApproachOther/Miscellaneous

5

10

0

0

10

20

15

30

20

40

25No. of Responses

No. of Responses

Less than 5%

Between 5% and 10%

More than 50%Between 25% and 50%

Don’t Know

Between 10% and 25%

50Source for this page: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. For charts at middle and bottom, respondents were asked in open-ended questions to separately describe lessons learned from a “failed” grant and a “successful” grant. Responses were then analyzed and grouped according to common themes.

SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016

Key Factors in Grant Success or FailureSurvey questions also addressed Southeastern grantmakers’ perceptions of grant success and failure. When asked what portion of their grant recipients fail to achieve their intended outcomes, more than three quarters of respondents answered that less than 25 percent of their grants fail. Only a small sliver, 6 percent, reported having more than a quarter of their grants fail to reach their goals. Respondents were then asked in a set of open-ended questions to describe their experience with a grant that had failed and another instance that had ended in relative success. Among the factors discussed in relation to grant failure, leadership was mentioned most, with lack of due diligence and inadequate capacity also ranking high. Collaboration and strong program models were by far the leading factors mentioned in relation to grant success.

Leadership with vision is key to every grant we make. It's now one of the first things we look at. Lack of leadership was a recipe for failure.”

“

“Our best grants are the ones where we have a collaborative relationship with the nonprofit partner.”

What portion of your foundation’s grantsfail to achieve their intended outcomes?

Factors Leading to Failure

Factors Leading to Success

Leadership/Staffing ConcernsInsufficient Due Diligence by Funder

Inadequate CapacityLack of Accountability/Evaluation

Dependency on Other Partners/ResourcesPoor Planning/Implementation

Unrealistic Program ExpectationsGrantee Did Not Meet Commitments

Lack of Community EngagementProject Not SustainableFinancial Improprieties

Grant Not Scaled to Problem/NeedOrganizational FailureOther/Miscellaneous

Collaboration/PartnershipSuccessful Program Model

Strong LeadershipAbility to Meet Community Need

Accountability/OutcomesLong-Term Investment

Well-Developed Strategic PlanClear Expectations

Innovative ApproachOther/Miscellaneous

5

10

0

0

10

20

15

30

20

40

25No. of Responses

No. of Responses

Less than 5%

Between 5% and 10%

More than 50%Between 25% and 50%

Don’t Know

Between 10% and 25%

50Source for this page: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. For charts at middle and bottom, respondents were asked in open-ended questions to separately describe lessons learned from a “failed” grant and a “successful” grant. Responses were then analyzed and grouped according to common themes.

5 | SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016

NUMBER ASSETS TOTAL GIVINGType 2004 2014 % change 2004 2014 % change 2004 2014 % change

Independent 5,617 6,840 21.8% $25,428,952,349 $38,928,626,870 53.1% $1,367,378,658 $1,882,067,913 37.6%

Family 4,726 7,341 55.3% $18,092,352,888 $36,713,556,199 102.9% $1,266,329,984 $2,730,870,880 115.7%

Operating 663 667 0.6% $2,970,671,634 $2,678,706,858 -9.8% $108,267,096 $92,165,314 -14.9%

Corporate 407 438 7.6% $2,459,077,050 $5,370,054,628 118.4% $591,687,446 $966,773,498 63.4%

Community 102 118 15.7% $5,156,735,503 $12,050,347,116 133.7% $485,911,944 $1,244,540,300 156.1%

Health Legacy 29 38 31.0% $1,821,248,427 $2,847,838,070 56.4% $72,469,600 $120,151,435 65.8%

Total 11,544 15,442 33.8% $55,929,037,851 $98,589,129,741 76.3% $3,892,044,728 $7,036,569,340 80.8%

Growth in Southeastern Philanthropy, 2004-2014

Summary Statistics for Southeastern Foundations by State, 2014

The number of grantmaking foundations in the Southeast rose by nearly 34 percent between 2004 and 2014. This slightly outpaced the growth of foundations nationally, which increased in number by 28 percent during the same period. Assets and total giving for Southeastern foundations grew at an even more dramatic pace,

with assets rising by 76 percent and total giving increasing by just over 80 percent. This growth was particularly striking for Southeastern family and community foundations. Family foundations rose in number by over 55 percent and by 2014 had

overtaken independent foundations as the most numerous type of foundation in the Southeast. Community foundations experienced the largest growth in assets and giving, despite adding only 16 new foundations in their category. This may at least be partially attributed to the continued proliferation of donor-advised funds.

State No. of Foundations Assets Total Giving

Alabama 936 $3,190,742,690 $210,448,662

Arkansas 312 $4,874,216,215 $699,037,334

Florida 5,283 $25,863,140,013 $1,733,933,939

Georgia 1,511 $16,656,838,894 $1,065,012,405

Kentucky 557 $3,210,659,047 196,801,458

Louisiana 533 $4,066,208,049 $242,590,101

Mississippi 258 $1,412,884,970 $90,734,689

North Carolina 3,185 $18,926,060,497 $1,446,493,320

South Carolina 507 $2,467,783,282 $165,679,909

Tennessee 821 $7,623,077,972 $562,670,960

Virginia 1,539 $10,297,518,112 $623,166,563

Source for this page: Foundation Center, 2016. Includes all non-terminated independent, family, operating, corporate, community and health legacy foundations. Sources of data for these foundations include IRS information returns, foundation reports, and information reported to the Foundation Center. Assets are stated at market value. Total giving amount includes grants, scholarships, and employee matching gifts; it does not include all qualifying distributions, e.g., loans, PRIs, set-asides, and program or other administrative expenses.

NUMBER ASSETS TOTAL GIVINGType 2004 2014 % change 2004 2014 % change 2004 2014 % change

Independent 5,617 6,840 21.8% $25,428,952,349 $38,928,626,870 53.1% $1,367,378,658 $1,882,067,913 37.6%

Family 4,726 7,341 55.3% $18,092,352,888 $36,713,556,199 102.9% $1,266,329,984 $2,730,870,880 115.7%

Operating 663 667 0.6% $2,970,671,634 $2,678,706,858 -9.8% $108,267,096 $92,165,314 -14.9%

Corporate 407 438 7.6% $2,459,077,050 $5,370,054,628 118.4% $591,687,446 $966,773,498 63.4%

Community 102 118 15.7% $5,156,735,503 $12,050,347,116 133.7% $485,911,944 $1,244,540,300 156.1%

Health Legacy 29 38 31.0% $1,821,248,427 $2,847,838,070 56.4% $72,469,600 $120,151,435 65.8%

Total 11,544 15,442 33.8% $55,929,037,851 $98,589,129,741 76.3% $3,892,044,728 $7,036,569,340 80.8%

Growth in Southeastern Philanthropy, 2004-2014

Summary Statistics for Southeastern Foundations by State, 2014

The number of grantmaking foundations in the Southeast rose by nearly 34 percent between 2004 and 2014. This slightly outpaced the growth of foundations nationally, which increased in number by 28 percent during the same period. Assets and total giving for Southeastern foundations grew at an even more dramatic pace,

with assets rising by 76 percent and total giving increasing by just over 80 percent. This growth was particularly striking for Southeastern family and community foundations. Family foundations rose in number by over 55 percent and by 2014 had

overtaken independent foundations as the most numerous type of foundation in the Southeast. Community foundations experienced the largest growth in assets and giving, despite adding only 16 new foundations in their category. This may at least be partially attributed to the continued proliferation of donor-advised funds.

State No. of Foundations Assets Total Giving

Alabama 936 $3,190,742,690 $210,448,662

Arkansas 312 $4,874,216,215 $699,037,334

Florida 5,283 $25,863,140,013 $1,733,933,939

Georgia 1,511 $16,656,838,894 $1,065,012,405

Kentucky 557 $3,210,659,047 196,801,458

Louisiana 533 $4,066,208,049 $242,590,101

Mississippi 258 $1,412,884,970 $90,734,689

North Carolina 3,185 $18,926,060,497 $1,446,493,320

South Carolina 507 $2,467,783,282 $165,679,909

Tennessee 821 $7,623,077,972 $562,670,960

Virginia 1,539 $10,297,518,112 $623,166,563

Source for this page: Foundation Center, 2016. Includes all non-terminated independent, family, operating, corporate, community and health legacy foundations. Sources of data for these foundations include IRS information returns, foundation reports, and information reported to the Foundation Center. Assets are stated at market value. Total giving amount includes grants, scholarships, and employee matching gifts; it does not include all qualifying distributions, e.g., loans, PRIs, set-asides, and program or other administrative expenses.

SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016 | 6

Which of the following issues do you think present the greatest challenges for the geographic area in which you make grants?

Is your grantmaking more reactive or more proactive?

Mostly Reactive (1-2)Moderately Reactive (3-5) Moderately Proactive (6-8)Mostly Proactive (9-10)

Risk Averse (1-3)Somewhat Risk Tolerant (4-7)Mostly Risk Tolerant (8-10)

% of Respondents% of Respondents

What is your foundation’s tolerance for risk in its grantmaking?

SOUTHERN TRENDS REPORT 2016

Grantmaking Practices of Southeastern FoundationsAs part of a 2016 membership market analysis, the Southeastern Council of Foundations solicited responses to a set of questions regarding organizations’ grantmaking practices. When asked to describe their grantmaking as reactive or proactive on a scale from one to ten, 44 percent ranked their approach as either mostly reactive or moderately reactive. A slight majority, 56 percent, ranked their approach as moderately proactive or mostly proactive.

Corporate funders were among the most likely to rank their approach as proactive.

Respondents were next asked to rank their tolerance for risk in their grantmaking. Perhaps surprisingly, only 18 percent self-reported as being risk averse, while the remaining 82 percent ranked their approach as either somewhat risk tolerant or mostly risk tolerant. The survey also asked respondents to rank the most pressing

challenges for the communities in which they provide funding. Three of the top five issues ranked by respondents concerned either education or child development. Mental health ranked third in importance, while job training and workforce development came fourth. Less urgent issues included a number of environmental concerns, as well as immigration and refugee services and support for arts and culture.

Most Challenging Issues Less Challenging Issues

1. Public K-12 education effectiveness

2. Early childhood education availability and quality

3. Mental and behavioral health supports

4. Job training and workforce development

5. Child welfare

1. Immigration and refugee services

2. Urban parks and greenspace

3. Water availability and water quality

4. Arts and culture funding

5. Land conservation

14%

30% 39%

17% 18%

40%

42%

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Reactive is defined as primarily responding to funding requests initiated by grantseeking organizations, while proactive assumes that the grantmaking foundation actively develops its own priorities and initiatives before seeking proposals.

Source: Based on responses to a 2016 Southeastern Council of Foundations membership market analysis. A total of 291 respondents participated. Respondents were asked to rank a listing of 24 preselected issue areas on a scale of 1 to 10, from least urgent to most urgent.

Discover More OnlineThis report reflects a broad, regional overview of philanthropy in the Southeast. To get a full picture of Southern giving, please visit secftrendsreport.foundationcenter.org. This site includes interactive dashboards for the entire region as well as all 11 states in the SECF footprint. It will be updated regularly as new data becomes available and allows visitors to explore how, where and in what areas grantmaking dollars have been deployed in our region.

The Southeastern Council of Foundations (SECF) is one of the nation’s largest regional associations of grantmakers, serving more than 330 of the most dynamic foundations and corporate giving programs in the South. SECF works in partnership with members in 11 Southeastern states to serve, strengthen, promote and champion the South’s philanthropic voice and infrastructure through engaging programming, leadership development training, access to unique resources and invaluable connections. By encouraging insightful philanthropic collaboration, SECF creates opportunities to increase the region’s grantmaking impact and empower transformational community change.

C o n n e c t · E n g a g e · In s p i r e

For more information, visit secf.org.

Established in 1956, Foundation Center is the leading source of information about philanthropy worldwide. Through data, analysis, and training, it connects people who want to change the world to the resources they need to succeed. The Center maintains the most comprehensive database on U.S. and, increasingly, global grantmakers and their grants — a robust, accessible knowledge bank for the sector. It also operates research, education, and training programs designed to advance knowledge of philanthropy at every level.

For more information, visit foundationcenter.org.

©2016 Foundation Center. All Rights Reserved.