BENCHMARKING DIVERSITY A First Look at New York City Foundations and Nonprofits

BENCHMARKING DIVERSITY
A First Look at New York City
Foundations and Nonprofi ts

---

Authors
Lawrence T. McGill __________________________________ Senior Vice President for Research
Brielle Bryan _______________________________________ Research Assistant
Eugene D. Miller ____________________________________ Assistant Director, Center on Philanthropy and
Civil Society, City University of New York
Contributing Staff
The Foundation Center
Christine Innamorato _________________________________ Production Manager
Betty Saronson ______________________________________ Graphic Designer/Production Associate
Teri Wade __________________________________________ Vice President for Communications
Philanthropy New York
STAFF
Ronna Brown _______________________________________ President
Yves H. Etheart _____________________________________ Communications Associate
Jason McGill _______________________________________ Vice President of Member Services
INCREASING DIVERSITY IN PHILANTHROPY (IDP) COMMITTEE
Joelle-Jude Fontaine __________________________________ IDP Committee Chair; Vice Chair of
Philanthropy New York Board of Directors
Committee Members
Acknowledgments
Philanthropy New York would like to thank the 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 Increasing Diversity in Philanthropy (IDP)
Committees for their leadership and input on this project.
Philanthropy New York also gratefully acknowledges those leaders who encouraged nonprofi t organizations throughout
New York City to participate in this project. They are: Michael Clark, president of the Nonprofi t Coordinating Committee
of New York; Angelo Falcón, president and founder of the National Institute for Latino Policy; Rabbi Robert Kaplan,
director of CAUSE-NY at the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York; Cao K. O, executive director of the Asian
American Federation of New York; Stephanie Palmer, executive director of the New York City Mission Society; and Lillian
Rodríguez López, president of the Hispanic Federation. We also thank our fellow regional associations for their support.
The Foundation Center would like to thank Carol DeVita and Thomas Pollak of the Urban Institute for their thoughtful
guidance at critical points during the study. The Center also extends thanks to Henry A.J. Ramos, lead consultant on the
Diversity in Philanthropy Project (diversityinphilanthopy.org), and the members of the project’s research advisory committee
for their expert input into the design of the larger research program of which this study is a part.
Support
Philanthropy New York would like to thank the following foundations for their generous support of this project:
The Atlantic Philanthropies, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation, the A.L. Mailman
Family Foundation, The New York Community Trust, the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, and the Surdna Foundation.
The Foundation Center gratefully acknowledges the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation for its support of this project and
for its continuing support of the Center’s efforts to improve the state of knowledge in the fi eld on diversity in philanthropy.
Download Benchmarking Diversity: A First Look at New York City Foundations and Nonprofi ts
at philanthropynewyork.org or foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/specialtrends.
For more information contact Lawrence T. McGill at (212) 807-3634 or ltm@foundationcenter.org.
© 2009 by the Foundation Center. All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-1-59542-274-3

---

Benchmarking Diversity: A First Look at New York City Foundations and Nonprofi ts
©2009 THE FOUNDATION CENTER
Table of Contents
Tables and Figures _____________________________________________________ 4
Preface _______________________________________________________________ 6
Executive Summary ____________________________________________________ 8
1. SURVEY OF NEW YORK FOUNDATIONS__________________________________ 11
Introduction
________________________________________________________ 11

About the Terms Used in This Report __________________________________ 11

About the Survey of New York Foundations _____________________________ 12

Types of Foundations ________________________________________________ 12

Overall Staffi ng Patterns _____________________________________________ 13
Staff
Diversity
______________________________________________________ 14

Diversity at the Chief Executive Level __________________________________ 16
Board
Diversity
_____________________________________________________ 17

Policies Regarding Staff and Board Diversity ____________________________ 17

Populations Targeted by Grantmakers __________________________________ 18

Tracking Who Benefi ts From Grantmaking ______________________________ 18

Grantmaking Targeted to Populations of Color _________________________ 19

Grantmaking to Organizations Led by People of Color ___________________ 19

Data Collection on Gender _________________________________________ 20

How Board Diversity Correlates With Other Diversity Measures ____________ 20

Foundation Activities Regarding Capacity Building and
Developing Nonprofi t Leadership ___________________________________ 21

General Operating Characteristics of Surveyed Foundations _______________ 23
2. SURVEY OF NEW YORK NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS _____________________ 24

Overall Staffi ng Patterns _____________________________________________ 24
Did This Study Succeed in Developing a Solid Estimate of the
Diversity of NYC Nonprofi t Organizations? ____________________________ 24
Staff Diversity ______________________________________________________ 25
What is a “Minority-Led” Organization? ________________________________ 27
Targeting Population Groups __________________________________________ 27
Foundation Support of New York Nonprofi t Organizations _________________ 29
3. CONCLUSION _________________________________________________________32

---

Benchmarking Diversity: A First Look at New York City Foundations and Nonprofi ts
©2009 THE FOUNDATION CENTER
Tables and Figures
1. SURVEY OF NEW YORK FOUNDATIONS
Figure 1. Average Number of Employees at Staffed Philanthropy New York

Grantmakers by Assets ____________________________________ 13
Table 1.
Philanthropy New York Members’ Staff Size by Assets ____________ 13
Figure 2.
Racial and Ethnic Diversity of Philanthropy New York Members’

Staff by Job Level _________________________________________ 14
Table 2.
Characteristics of Philanthropy New York Members’ Staff and

Board Members __________________________________________ 14
Figure 3. Racial and Ethnic Composition of Philanthropy New York Members’

Employees_______________________________________________ 15
Figure 4.
Racial and Gender Diversity of Philanthropy New York Members’

Employees_______________________________________________ 15
Figure 5.
Racial and Gender Diversity of Philanthropy New York Members’

Support Staff ____________________________________________ 16
Figure 6.
Racial and Gender Diversity of Philanthropy New York Members’

Paid Program Offi cers _____________________________________ 16
Figure 7.
Racial and Gender Diversity of Philanthropy New York Members’

Executive Staff (VP or Higher) ______________________________ 16
Figure 8.
Gender Diversity of Philanthropy New York Members’

Chief Executives by Assets _________________________________ 17
Figure 9.
Racial and Gender Diversity of Philanthropy New York Members’

Chief Executives __________________________________________ 17
Figure 10. Racial and Gender Diversity of Philanthropy New York Members’

Boards of Directors _______________________________________ 17
Figure 11. Percent of Philanthropy New York Members with Policies Regarding

Board and Staff Diversity by Assets _________________________ 18
Figure 12. Populations Targeted by Philanthropy New York Members _________ 18
Figure 13. Percent of Philanthropy New York Members with Policies

Regarding Grantmaking Diversity by Assets ___________________ 19
Figure 14. Proportion of Philanthropy New York Members’ Grants That Serve

Specifi c Demographic Populations __________________________ 19
Figure 15. Philanthropy New York Members’ Capacity-Building Grantmaking ___ 21
Figure 16. Philanthropy New York Members’ Capacity-Building Grantmaking

by Assets _______________________________________________ 21
Figure 17. Philanthropy New York Members’ Non-Monetary Capacity-Building

Support _________________________________________________ 22
Figure 18. Frequency of Philanthropy New York Members’ Board or Staff

Conversations Regarding Building Nonprofi t Leadership in

Communities of Color _____________________________________ 22
Figure 19. Proportion of Philanthropy New York Members’ Grants

That Are Designed to Build Nonprofi t Leadership in

Communities of Color _____________________________________ 22

---

Benchmarking Diversity: A First Look at New York City Foundations and Nonprofi ts
©2009 THE FOUNDATION CENTER
2. SURVEY OF NEW YORK NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
Table 3.
New York City Nonprofi t Staff Size by Budget Size ________________ 25
Table 4.
Characteristics of New York City Nonprofi t Staff
and Board Members ______________________________________ 25
Figure 20. Racial and Ethnic Diversity of New York City Nonprofi t Staff by


Job Level ________________________________________________ 25
Figure 21. Racial and Ethnic Diversity of New York City Nonprofi t

Chief Executives by Budget Size ____________________________ 26
Figure 22. Racial and Ethnic Diversity of New York City Nonprofi t Boards

by Budget Size ___________________________________________ 26
Table 5.
Presence of Diversity Policies at New York City Nonprofi ts by

Organizational Characteristics ______________________________ 26
Figure 23. Racial and Ethnic Diversity of New York City Nonprofi t Chief

Executives by Minority-Led Identifi cation _____________________ 27
Figure 24. Racial and Ethnic Diversity of New York City Nonprofi t

Board Members by Minority-Led Identifi cation _________________ 27
Table 6.
Demographics of New York City Residents ______________________ 28
Figure 25. New York City Nonprofi t Programming Targeted to Specifi c

Demographic Groups ______________________________________ 29
Figure 26. Presence of Policies Regarding the Diversity of Populations Served

at New York City Nonprofi ts ________________________________ 30
Figure 27. Success Rates of New York City Nonprofi ts’ Grant Applications by

Minority-Led Identifi cation __________________________________ 30
Table 7.
Presence of Development Staff at New York City Nonprofi ts by

Budget Size ______________________________________________ 31
Table 8.
New York City Nonprofi ts’ Ranking of Most Needed

Capacity-Building Support by Minority-Led Identifi cation ________ 31
3. CONCLUSION
Table 9. Comparison of Racial and Ethnic Diversity Among New York

Foundation and Nonprofi t Staff and Board Members __________ 33
Table 10. Percent of New York Grantmakers and Nonprofi ts That Have Policies

Regarding Board and Staff Diversity ________________________ 34
Table 11. Populations Targeted by New York Grantmakers and Nonprofi ts ___ 34
Table 12. Types of Capacity-Building Support Provided by New York

Grantmakers and Needed by NYC Nonprofi ts ________________ 35
Table 13. Data Collection by New York Grantmakers and Nonprofi ts ________ 36

---

Benchmarking Diversity: A First Look at New York City Foundations and Nonprofi ts
©2009 THE FOUNDATION CENTER
Preface
The attached report, commissioned by Philanthropy
We believe that a philanthropic organization’s commitment
New York1, is the fi rst study of its kind for the
to diversity is critical to ensuring its effectiveness and
New York philanthropic sector, the fi rst nationally to
impact. Inclusive and transparent organizational practices
examine the racial and ethnic demographics of
are a key component to realizing this commitment,
foundations and nonprofi t organizations at the same
regardless of organizational structure, mission, or capacity.
time, and the fi rst to ask nonprofi ts how they defi ne/
To more deeply and broadly address the issue of
describe a minority-led organization. As one of only three
diversity, Philanthropy New York’s Board of Directors
philanthropic membership associations currently involved
created the Increasing Diversity in Philanthropy (IDP)
in this type of research, we have taken on an important
Committee in 2000. Since then, the IDP Committee
leadership role, and we are already sharing our work with
has addressed concerns raised by Philanthropy New York
other regional associations as well as with other colleague
members, presented programs with experts and foundation
organizations. We are also committed to working with
leaders, developed tools, and assessed and presented
other local and national diversity initiatives and, especially,
pertinent reports.
with our members.
Two years ago, Philanthropy New York realized that
our work on diversity had proceeded ungrounded by
any research-based knowledge about the racial and
The Current Landscape
ethnic demography of New York–area nonprofi ts and
foundations, their institutional data, and organizational
The topic of diversity has been substantially discussed
capacities. Partnering with the Foundation Center, we
during the past decade and over the past two years it has
created two surveys, one of which we sent to philanthropic
been a headline issue in national and regional conversations
organizations (including all Philanthropy New York
in the philanthropic sector. During the past 12 months,
members) and the other to nonprofi t organizations in
a broad range of opinion pieces, industry journals,
the New York metropolitan area. Surveys were mailed
and state and national conferences have addressed the
and responses collected between September 2008 and
issue. These discussions elicited broad attention to this
April 2009.
important topic, including the development of reports,
This report presents the survey fi ndings. While it
partnerships, programs, and policies addressing issues
narrows our knowledge gap, it is not defi nitive. We
of diversity in philanthropy, and, most notably, calls for
note that:
state legislation2 in California. Currently, several local and
national initiatives have been formed by foundations and
• This fi rst report focuses primarily on racial, ethnic,
other institutions to brainstorm the most effective ways to
and gender identity, and to a limited degree on sexual
address the issue of diversity. The philanthropic sector as
orientation and people with disabilities.
a whole continues to defi ne what a diverse and inclusive
• The core data generated by our report invite
sector would look like and mean for their foundations and
various interpretations and analyses, and provide the
their grantmaking.
groundwork for future research, but do not present a
For Philanthropy New York, the importance and value
singular conclusion, story, or prescription for action.
of diversity is explicitly recognized as critical in our mission
• Our results were generated from a self-selected pool
and values statement. Established in 1979 by New York
of respondents, and this may affect the completeness
City–based foundations, Philanthropy New York exists to
of our fi ndings.
strengthen the capacity of grantmaking organizations to
fulfi ll their respective missions effectively and effi ciently.
Nonetheless, we believe the fi ndings add substantially to
our ongoing work around diversity in our sector.
(continued)


6

---

Benchmarking Diversity: A First Look at New York City Foundations and Nonprofi ts
©2009 THE FOUNDATION CENTER
What Comes Next?
• engage in in-depth conversations within your
organizations and with your peers;
Foundations have a multitude of missions and priorities;
• suggest areas for future education and research;
are of many sizes and capacities; and will have different
approaches to this issue. Philanthropy New York believes
• participate in our programs and initiatives on
that diversity and inclusion are critical values. We also
diversity and related issues in the coming months and
believe that a diverse group of trustees, advisors, and
years; and
staff working in an intentionally inclusive environment
• examine and consider the resources, mission
will create a more effective grantmaking organization. As
statements, model policies, and other practices that
an educator, our mission is to disseminate knowledge.
support a more diverse, inclusive sector.
Philanthropy New York therefore seeks to engage funders
of all perspectives in thoughtful dialogue on this issue.
We aspire to work towards a sector where notions of
To this end, Philanthropy New York will create a
diversity, inclusiveness, and transparency are seamlessly
series of educational programs, multimedia projects,
woven into the fabric of its practices, which will result in
and meetings to allow our members, other foundations,
stronger, more skillful, and more effective institutions that
infrastructure groups, and nonprofi ts to continue to
refl ect the communities they serve. We invite everyone
explore this issue in a sustained and meaningful way.
in the philanthropic and nonprofi t sectors to discuss the
Among these are: a briefi ng that will accompany the release
following report and join us in this work.
of our fi ndings; posts from members and other leaders
on our blog, Smart Assets; a technical assistance series
for different types of foundations; sharing best practices;
1. Philanthropy New York would like to thank the following foundations for their generous
support of this project: The Atlantic Philanthropies, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the
and opportunities for dialogue between nonprofi t and
William T. Grant Foundation, the A.L. Mailman Family Foundation, The New York Community
Trust, the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, and the Surdna Foundation.
foundation leaders.
2. In January 2008, the California Assembly passed AB 624, a bill sponsored by Assembly
In closing, we invite you to:
member Joe Coto (D-San Jose), which would have required foundations with assets of more
than $250 million to disclose the race and gender composition of their trustees, staff,
and grantees, as well as the number and percentage of grants awarded to organizations
• read the report as a whole. No one statistic or
serving the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and “ethnic minority”
communities. (The bill was withdrawn in June 2008 after a compromise was developed by
query tells the entire story, and this issue deserves a
Mr. Coto and nine of California’s largest foundations.)
thoughtful evaluation;
Ronna
D.
Brown
Joelle-Jude
Fontaine
Christine
Park
President
Chair
Chair

Philanthropy
New
York Increasing
Diversity

Philanthropy
New
York

in
Philanthropy
Committee
Board
of
Directors


7

---

Benchmarking Diversity: A First Look at New York City Foundations and Nonprofi ts
©2009 THE FOUNDATION CENTER
Executive Summary
Overview
In addition, the survey of foundations collected data on
types of capacity-building support provided and activities
Diversity has become a major topic of discussion within
related to developing nonprofi t leadership in communities
philanthropy. Conversations around this issue have
of color.
intensifi ed in recent months and have garnered a great deal
The survey of nonprofi t organizations also collected
of national and local attention. Unfortunately, many of
data on whether the organization considers itself to be
these conversations are occurring without the benefi t of
“minority-led,” the amount and types of support received,
fact-based research.
and areas of capacity-building need.
In 2008, Philanthropy New York (formerly the New
York Regional Association of Grantmakers) commissioned
the Foundation Center to undertake a pair of studies to
Key Findings—Survey of New York City
benchmark diversity in the philanthropic and nonprofi t
Foundations
sectors in the New York City area. The goal is to lay the
foundation for meaningful dialogue based on research.
Foundations Are Diverse But Less So
These studies are the fi rst of their kind in New York City
at Senior Staff Levels
and the fi rst in the nation to simultaneously examine the
The survey of Philanthropy New York members found
diversity of foundations and the nonprofi ts they fund.
that 43 percent of all staff at the surveyed foundations are
One study surveyed members of Philanthropy
people of color, and that ethnic and racial diversity varies
New York to gather data on staff and board diversity
by job level. Nearly half of all administrative and support
and on foundation practices related to diversity in
staff (48 percent) are people of color, as are 43 percent
grantmaking. The other study surveyed New York–area
of program offi cers, 30 percent of executive level staff
nonprofi t organizations to better understand the diversity
(excluding CEOs), 16 percent of CEOs, and 18 percent
of these organizations and the populations they serve.
of board members. About one quarter (25 percent) of all
While both of these studies focused primarily on issues
CEOs hired since 2000 have been people of color.
of racial and ethnic diversity, other areas of diversity were
explored as well, including gender, sexual orientation, and
Women Are in the Majority Except at the Board Level
disability status. The studies were conducted in the fall
Women account for 70 percent of staff, 63 percent of
of 2008 (survey of foundations) and the spring of 2009
CEOs, and 45 percent of board members.
(survey of nonprofi t organizations). The fi ndings in this
report are based on the survey responses of 95 members
There Are Small Percentages of LGBT Individuals
of Philanthropy New York (roughly 33 percent of its
and People with Disabilities
membership) and 540 nonprofi t organizations based in the
LGBT individuals and people with disabilities appeared to
fi ve boroughs of New York.
be relatively equally distributed across all job categories (at
The surveys collected data from foundations and
roughly 4 percent and 1 percent of total staff, respectively).
nonprofi ts on the following topics:
Foundations with Diversity Policies Tend to be
1. Staff and board diversity
More Diverse
About a third of the surveyed foundations had policies
2. Policies regarding staff and board diversity
regarding staff diversity, while 10 percent had policies
regarding board diversity. Among foundations with such
3. The extent to which specifi c populations are targeted
policies, both staff and board diversity tend to be greater.
4. Policies regarding populations served
5. Data collection on populations served


8

---

Benchmarking Diversity: A First Look at New York City Foundations and Nonprofi ts
©2009 THE FOUNDATION CENTER
A Majority of Foundations Target Grantmaking
monetary capacity-building support. Fifteen percent of
to Specifi c Populations
grantmakers said that they had provided non-monetary
Most of the surveyed foundations (84 percent) said that
capacity-building support to at least one “minority-led”
at least “some” of their grants are targeted to serve specifi c
organization within the last fi ve years, while about one in
population groups. Nearly half (47 percent) said that
ten (9 percent) said that they had provided such support
“youth or children” was specifi ed as a target population
to more than 10 minority-led organizations during this
in the foundation’s mission statement or grantmaking
time frame.
guidelines, followed by the “economically disadvantaged”
More than a third of the grantmakers surveyed
(39 percent), “women or girls” (23 percent), “other at-risk
(38 percent) said that at least “some” of their grants were
populations” (23 percent), and “ethnic or racial minorities”
awarded for “programs or initiatives designed to build
(20 percent).
nonprofi t leadership in communities of color.” Nearly
About 16 percent of the foundations surveyed said that
a quarter (24 percent) said that the topic of nonprofi t
they have “specifi c goals, policies, or guidelines regarding
leadership in communities of color was either a
grantmaking that serves people of color,” and 4 percent
“frequent” or “occasional” topic of discussion at board or
have policies or guidelines regarding grantmaking to
staff meetings.
organizations led by people of color.
More Than Half of Foundations Collect Data
Key Findings—Survey of New York City
on Grantee Demographics and Populations Served
Nonprofi t Organizations
More than half (51 percent) of surveyed foundations said
they “always” or “sometimes” ask grantseekers to provide
Nonprofi ts Are Diverse But Less So at Senior Levels
information about the racial and ethnic composition of
Overall, 59 percent of all staff at surveyed nonprofi t
the population(s) they serve. Among foundations that
organizations are people of color. Ethnic and racial
specifi cally name at least one racial or ethnic minority
diversity is greater at the managerial and support levels
group in their mission statement or grantmaking
(52 and 62 percent, respectively) and lower at the CEO
guidelines, 79 percent “always” or “sometimes” collect
and board levels (30 and 33 percent, respectively).
such data from grantseekers.
Just over a third of surveyed organizations (38 percent)
One quarter of surveyed foundations (25 percent) said
have policies or guidelines on staff diversity and
they either “always” or “sometimes” collect data from
31 percent on board diversity. About one in six
grantseekers on the racial or ethnic makeup of their board
(17 percent) have policies or guidelines regarding vendor
and 30 percent said they collect such information about
or consultant diversity.
their staff.
Women Outnumber Men Except on Boards
Board Diversity Correlates with
Women outnumber men at all levels except on boards,
Other Diversity Measures
where they account for 45 percent of trustees. LGBT
Philanthropy New York members with at least 25 percent
individuals account for 7 percent of CEOs and managers,
people of color on their boards (a threshold reached by
4 percent of board members, and 2 percent of support
27 percent of surveyed foundations) are more likely than
staff. People with disabilities account for about 1 percent
foundations with fewer people of color on their boards to
of staff at surveyed organizations.
have racially and ethnically diverse staffs, to have both staff
and grantmaking diversity policies, to target populations
Defi nition of “Minority-led” Organizations Varies
of color through their grantmaking, and to collect
Nearly four in ten organizations (38 percent) described
demographic data from grantseekers.
themselves as “minority-led.” While most of these
“minority-led” organizations (63 percent) have CEOs of
Grantmakers Are Focusing on Capacity Building and
color, 37 percent do not. Some of the nonprofi ts with
Developing Nonprofi t Leadership
white CEOs chose to identify themselves as minority-
Most of the grantmakers surveyed (59 percent) said
led because at least half of their board members or staffs
that at least “some” of their grants focus on “capacity
are people of color, but many identifi ed themselves as
building.” Ten percent of surveyed grantmakers said they
such because they are led by women, immigrants, LGBT
had awarded “more than 10” capacity-building grants
individuals, or people with disabilities.
specifi cally to nonprofi t organizations led by persons of
Minority-led organizations tend to differ from non-
color over the past fi ve years.
minority-led organizations in the following ways: they are
One third (33 percent) of surveyed grantmakers
more likely to target all or most of their programming to
said that they “often” or “sometimes” provide non-
specifi c populations; they are more likely to have policies


9

---

Benchmarking Diversity: A First Look at New York City Foundations and Nonprofi ts
©2009 THE FOUNDATION CENTER
or guidelines regarding the diversity of the populations
There Is Little Difference in Foundation Support for
they serve; and they express greater capacity-building needs
Minority-led vs. Non-Minority-led Nonprofi ts
than do non-minority-led organizations, especially in the
Among surveyed organizations, there appears to be little
areas of fundraising, technical support, human resources,
difference between the levels of support received by both
and staff training.
minority-led and non-minority-led organizations with
annual budgets of less than $1 million. Because of small
A Majority of Nonprofi ts Focus Work on
sample sizes, it was not possible to determine whether there
Specifi c Population Groups; Half Target Ethnic
was any difference in levels of support for larger minority-
or Racial Minorities in Their Work
led and non-minority-led organizations.
Seventy-nine percent of surveyed organizations have
For most of the surveyed organizations, the rate of
missions that lead to at least some of their work serving
successful grant submissions is less than 50 percent.
specifi c population groups. Fifty percent of surveyed
Among all survey respondents, 60 percent were successful
nonprofi t organizations said that “all” or “most” of their
less than half the time when seeking funding, while
programs or services are targeted to serve “ethnic or racial
40 percent were successful at least half the time.
minorities,” followed by the “economically disadvantaged”
Slightly more than half of surveyed nonprofi ts
(47 percent), “youth or children” (37 percent), “women
(51 percent) have received non-monetary support
or girls” (25 percent), and “immigrant communities”
from foundations.
(22 percent).
Lack of staff was cited as the most signifi cant barrier to
receiving foundation support. Roughly one quarter of the
Majority of Nonprofi ts Collect Data on
surveyed organizations (28 percent) have a dedicated
Diversity of Populations Served
full-time fundraiser and 17 percent have a dedicated
Sixty-seven percent of the organizations surveyed
part-time fundraiser. In line with these fi ndings,
“always” or “sometimes” gather demographic data on the
“fundraising” assistance was most often mentioned by
populations they serve. Minority-led organizations are
nonprofi t organizations as their greatest need in the area
more likely to collect this information (77 percent vs.
of capacity building.
61 percent of non-minority-led organizations.)

10

---