Insight Into Donor-Advised Giving
Hats off to Schwab for providing valuable insight into the giving behavior of their donor-advised fund customers.
Schwab has released a report providing giving data both since inception of their fund in 1999 and greater detail on fiscal year 2015.
Because donor funds are invested by Schwab, it’s nice to see that, since inception, donor funds held in accounts by Schwab have increased by $1 billion in value (i.e., capital appreciation).
Since inception, 46% of contributed assets have been granted. That represents 1 million grants, totalling $5.5 billion, with 20% of average total assets granted per year.
In Schwab’s fiscal 2015 alone, $1 billion was granted, via 205,000 individual grants. $2 billion was contributed into the fund’s 26,000 current accounts.
42,000 charitable organisations were supported. And now, for the scoop you’re all waiting for, here are the top 10 grant recipients …
- Feeding America
- Doctors Without Borders
- Salvation Army
- Red Cross
- Planned Parenthood
- United Way
- Habitat for Humanity
- Wounded Warrior Project
- YMCA
- Nature Conservancy
I can live with that assortment. What about you?
According to Schwab, 97% of grants contain donor names (i.e., are not anonymous). Presumably that means the recipient charities and nonprofits can acknowledge and build direct relationships with these donors.
There’s more detail in the report, which you can download here.
Tom
5 responses to “Insight Into Donor-Advised Giving”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Nearly 50% of the funds being granted out is so much better than many predicted. It is so wonderful to have actual data to use for the discussions surrounding these funds.
Kudos to Schwab for sharing!
Love the data. Adding just one other data point: when these organizations were founded.
Feeding America (1979
Doctors Without Borders (1971)
Salvation Army (1865)
Red Cross (1864)
Planned Parenthood (1916)
United Way (1887)
Habitat for Humanity (1976)
Wounded Warrior Project (2003)
YMCA (1844)
Nature Conservancy (1951)
Donor Advised Funds allow the donor to get the tax deduction while not contributing to our society. Twenty per cent distribution means 80% of the funds are not helping our society.
Bob, with all due respect… you are looking at this the wrong way. Private Foundations are only required to give 5% of their assets each year – they should be the target of your venom. When combined, Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard are contributing 22% of their assets to other organizations each year. That is a much better payoff to ‘our society’ than the traditional Family grant-making foundations. Additionally, DAFs are attracting more and more new donors each year thereby growing our charitable economy very significantly.
Rob Mitchell
CEO
Atlas of Giving