趋势2020: Study Methodology and Key Findings

由H.E.提供对接粉底

This excerpt from NCFP’s趋势2020研究分享了有关美国各种家庭基金会的数据和分析,包括基金会有效性,影响投资和支出,参与下一代等等。


研究方法

全国从事凤凰国际营销(“越南河粉enix”) to design and conduct a nationally representative survey of family foundations, with oversight by a diverse advisory committee of knowledgeable practitioners. NCFP and Phoenix collected information about family foundations through a 52-question, mixed-mode survey (i.e., mail, web, and telephone) conducted between February and May 2019.

The survey yielded 517 responses, exceeding total responses in 2015 by more than 50%. The Foundation Center’s family foundation database was used to design the sampling frame and was the primary sample source. In total, we invited 2,500 family foundations in the Foundation Center’s database to participate in the survey.1 To be eligible, a foundation had to have assets of at least $2M or annual giving of at least $100,000. We used a random sample of 2,000 family foundations, in addition to an oversample of 500 large foundations that have $25M or more in assets and annual giving of at least $100,000.

In addition to this random sample, family foundations were invited to opt-in and complete the survey online by NCFP and its partner organizations.

The final sample breakdown by when the foundation was created and by giving level is:

该人群的样本量为517足够大,并提供合理的样本量来分析和衡量感兴趣的细分市场的显着差异。市场研究中的一般经验法则是样本量30或更多是“足够大样本状况”。大多数感兴趣的细分市场的样本量为100或更多,所有样本量的样本量为40或更多。

将样品权重应用于数据,以说明大型基础的过度采样,并且小基础之间的响应率略低。基金会中心的全国代表性数据库包含17,336个活跃的家庭基础,满足了研究要求,并且是将数据加权到实际人群的基础。

1基金会中心和Guidestar于2019年初合并,并成立了一个新的实体,现在称为坦率。

这项研究的发现可以根据
以下因素:

  • 从基础中心的家庭基金会数据库中所有合格的活跃基础中随机选择主要样本;
  • Final sample weighting to ensure the sample distribution by size of foundation is comparable to that of the Foundation Center’s database;
  • 全国性的家庭基金会代表

Notes Regarding Market Research Practices and Limitations

与所有市场研究一样,这项研究存在一些局限性。一些具体的局限性包括提出的问题数量,这些问题限制了,这些问题限制了受访者的疲劳,潜在的误解或误解问题,对受访者的知识或记忆的变化以及对较小突出的细分市场的小样本量。我们进行了每项尝试,以确保问题清楚(通过广泛的同行评审/投入),并确保适当的代表回答调查(调查专门要求家庭成员积极参与基金会或知识渊博的董事会或工作人员完成调查)。我们有充分的理由相信,调查受访者以最好的能力和记忆力准确地回答了问题。

尽管这项研究涉及一个相对较大的家庭基础样本,但我们警告说,任何样本都可能没有完全代表整个人群。但是,我们认为,选择参与者的护理以及样本量为各个家庭基金会的趋势提供了最佳代表。

这些市场研究的这些共同局限性并不能使调查结果变得不那么有效或重要。NCFP计划通过与家庭基金会社区成员的定性访谈更深入地探讨一些问题或感兴趣的领域。

联系NCFP关于这项研究的进一步问题。

Notes Regarding Peer Review:
TCC Group的慈善团队很高兴有机会回顾国家慈善家2019年基准测试调查的初步发现。manbetx安卓版最新版下载根据我们对调查方法的理解,提出的发现似乎反映了一种统计负责的方法。- 史蒂文·劳伦斯(Steven Lawrence)和梅琳达(Melinda Fine)

趋势2020关键发现

Foundation Giving Identity: Newer Foundations Focus on Issues

  • 较旧的和较大的家庭基础将其捐赠重点放在地理上,而绝大多数新的家庭基金会(自2010年以来成立的基金会)将其奉献重点放在问题上。
  • Compared to2015 Trends Studyresults, the oldest foundations are slightly more likely to be place-based than they were five years ago, while the newest foundations are significantly more likely to focus on issues than they were five years ago.

Foundation Effectiveness: Family Relationships and Good Governance Lead to Impact

  • 大多数家庭基金会说,参与基金会的家庭成员一起工作。大多数人还认为他们的内部操作是有效的。总的来说,他们感到自己的影响水平有改善的空间。
  • 报告在这三个关键措施(操作,家庭动态和影响力)中“非常有效”的基金会似乎将优先考虑到更高的优先级,并且不太可能专注于学习授予和重点领域或问题。这些基金会也更有可能具有正式的治理实践和书面政策。
  • Foundation impact appears to depend more on effective governance and family members working well together, and less so on having effective internal operations.

基金会捐赠:新的家庭基金会专注于经济不平等

  • Giving amounts have grown since this study was last completed in 2015. However, while giving has increased, the number of grants awarded each year have declined somewhat, indicating there are fewer but larger grants.
  • Consistent with findings in 2015, the top two focus areas for family foundations are education and poverty.
  • 较新的家庭基金会(在2010年或之后创建)似乎具有明显不同的优先级,更加集中于经济不平等和/或基本需求资金(包括贫困,饥饿或无家可归和经济机会/包容性),并且更少
    专注于教育。家庭基金会继续采用各种赠款策略,多数报告他们使用多年的赠款和一般的运营支持补助金。将近一半说他们使用能力建设
    赠款是其战略的重要组成部分,比2015年的减少。新的基金会更有可能参与所有这些策略。

影响投资和支出:较新的家庭基金会领先

  • 自2015年以来,目前从事任务/影响投资的家庭基金会数量增加了一倍。计划或继续扩大任务/影响力投资的计划从2015年开始也有所增加,在所有家庭基金会中,近四分之一表示他们将建立任务/影响力在不久的将来进行投资,并计划扩大这种类型的投资。
  • 自2010年以来创造的基金会也更有可能使用与计划相关的投资(PRI)并采用其他与任务相关或影响投资方法。
  • These foundations also appear to have very different plans with regard to overall assets and payout strategy. The majority of newer foundations expect an increase in assets in the next four years. The number of family foundations currently engaged in mission/impact investing has doubled since 2015. Plans to institute or continue expanding mission/impact investing are also up overall from 2015, with nearly one-fourth of all family foundations saying they will institute mission/impact investing in the near future and nearly 30% planning to expand this type of investing. One in three will institute mission or impact investing for the first time.

创始人的存在和捐助者的遗产:积极参与和遵守意图

  • Founders remain actively involved in most family foundations, although this has declined slightly since 2015. Foundations consider a founder’s involvement beneficial in several ways, including the founders’ ability to share their values/interests and their community connections. Most family foundations have a clear understanding of their founder’s intent and adhere very closely
    to that intent.
  • 创始人与其他家庭成员或非家庭成员有关家庭动态,治理和影响的看法不同。创始人更有可能认为年长和年轻一代对不同的问题感兴趣,但是不太可能说几代人对如何实现影响有不同的看法。
  • 创始人对衡量基金会捐赠的影响的兴趣较小,以使其在传达基金会捐赠的目标和结果方面的价值,或寻找将外部观点正式整合到赠款过程和/或治理中的方法
    基金会的结构。

参与下一代:新领导者的机会

  • 超过一半的家庭基金会在其董事会上有多代人。十分之一的人在董事会上有三代或更多代人。三分之一至少有第三代成员,但不到十分之一的家庭成员来自第四代或以后。
  • 大多数家庭基金会以一种或多种方式积极吸引下一代领导人。绝大多数人通过拥有正式的下一代董事会,允许下一代家庭成员参与赠款决策,或者允许其他一些参与治理的机会,从而为下一代提供正式参与赠款决策的机会。
  • 在未来四年中,有超过三分之一的家庭基金会计划增加年轻家庭成员委员会的代表,几乎相同的人数计划在业务中给年轻的家庭成员发言权并做出决定。
  • The most common issues related to generational dynamics include challenges related to time constraints and differing interests across generations. Geographic dispersion of family members is also a common challenge for foundations of all ages.

Governance and Staff: More Diversity and Non-family Leaders

  • Two-thirds of family foundation boards include non-family board members. The total number and percentage of non-family board members has grown significantly over the past five years. Foundations created since 1990 are significantly more likely to have at least three non-family board members. On boards where there is at least one non-family member, non-family makes up close to half of all board seats.
  • 家庭基金会委员会的性别分配仍然相当相当。大约三分之一的基础董事会包括至少一个有色人种,大约十分之一的有色人种具有LGBTQ代表。
  • Nearly 70% of family foundations have non-family staff working for the foundation. About 60% have family members serving in staff roles. However, nearly half say an unpaid family member manages the daily operations versus a paid non-family staff member. Approximately one-quarter have a paid family member responsible in part for daily operations.
  • 目前,25%的人使用多样性、公正和Inclusion (DEI) goals/strategies to guide giving, 16% use outside DEI experts, and 15% say DEI considerations are very influential to their giving approach. DEI considerations are significantly more common in family foundations formed in the past 10 years. Fully one in three family foundations have DEI initiatives in their future plans.
  • 较新的家庭基金会更有可能报告他们评估DEI成果并分析受赠者的种族/种族/其他人口统计。

透明度和沟通:意见和方法

  • 在过去的五年中,关于给出优先级和流程的家庭基金会在其外部沟通方面似乎变得更加透明,但仍对这种透明度的价值和重要性有多样化的意见。
  • The majority of family foundations use at least one type of channel to communicate externally. Social media use (in particular Facebook and Twitter) and blogs are less prevalent across all family foundations, yet are more popular among larger foundations.
  • Fewer family foundations are accepting unsolicited inquiries or proposals. Family foundations that self-define as “very effective” appear to be much less likely to accept unsolicited letters of inquiry and/or proposals, yet significantly more likely to solicit feedback from grantees, and somewhat more likely to tell grant applicants why their proposal was declined.
  • 最新的家庭基金会似乎还具有更高的价值,即与受赠者的透明度相比。它们更有可能传达出拒绝提案,更有可能征求受赠人的反馈的原因,并且更有可能吸引社区领导人,问题区专家,其他赠款家庭基金会和DEI专家。

完整趋势2020study is在这里可用.