Global Giving: by U.S. Foundations
Global Giving: by U.S. Foundations
GLOBAL GIVING
by u.s. foundations
2011-2015
Table of Contents Contributors
Channels of International Giving. . ....................... 11 about philanthropy worldwide. Through data, analysis, and training, it connects
people who want to change the world to the resources they need to succeed.
International Giving by Subject.. ........................ 12
Foundation Center maintains the most comprehensive database on U.S.
International Giving by Population Focus.. .................. 13 and, increasingly, global grantmakers and their grants—a robust, accessible
knowledge bank for the sector. It also operates research, education, and training
Key Facts: U.S. Foundation Funding for Reproductive Health Care.. .. 13
programs designed to advance knowledge of philanthropy at every level.
Key Facts: U.S. Foundation Funding to Combat Climate Change. .... 14 Thousands of people visit Foundation Center’s website each day and are served
International Giving by Income Level of Beneficiary Country. . ..... 19 1949, is a nonprofit leadership association of grantmaking foundations and
corporations. It provides the opportunity, leadership, and tools needed by
Top Countries by Geographic Focus. . ..................... 19
philanthropic organizations to expand, enhance and sustain their ability to
Top Countries by Recipient Location. ..................... 19 advance the common good. The Council empowers professionals in philanthropy
to meet today’s toughest challenges and advances a culture of charitable giving
Asia & Pacific.. ................................... 20
in the U.S. and globally.
Caribbean. . ..................................... 22
Sub-Saharan Africa. . ............................... 30 Printed and bound in the United States of America.
2011
$314.5 M
$7.2 B
International giving by
community foundations
more than tripled
from 2011 to 2015.
$1O3.1 M
More on page 7
2011 2015
The average grant size
more than tripled
between 2002 and 2015. DIRECT GIVING
2015 $4.1 B
2002
$604.5 K Only 12% went directly
$200.9 K to local organizations
while 88% went to intermediaries.
More on page 11
I N T E R N AT I O N A L G I V I N G B Y S E L E C T S U B J E C T S , 2 0 1 1 - 2 0 1 5
HEALTH REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH CARE
2015
$18.6 B (52.5%) giving nearly tripled.
The Bill & Melinda Gates More on page 13 $1.0 B
2011
Foundation accounted for
$35.4 B
$362.2 M
80% of int’l health giving.
total int’l More on page 12 $178.9 M
giving
2011-2015 CLIMATE CHANGE
$835.6 M (2.4%)
EBOLA $154.2 M
(80%)
This report represents the latest in a decades-long collaboration between In addition to a detailed analysis of funding trends by issue areas, regions,
Foundation Center and Council on Foundations to regularly analyze the data population focus, and strategies, this report also relates these trends to
and trends on international grantmaking by U.S. foundations. It’s the tenth key events and developments during the time period, such as the adoption
report published by the two organizations since the collaboration started of the Sustainable Development Goals, the Ebola crisis in West Africa, the
in 1997. In 2017, Foundation Center and the Council on Foundations also reversal of the global gag rule, and the increasing legal restrictions faced
published the first-ever report analyzing international grantmaking by U.S. by civil society in countries around the world. Recognizing the gravity and
community foundations, Local Communities with Global Reach: International complexity of these global challenges we believe it’s more important than
Giving by U.S. Community Foundations. The previous analyses can be ever to monitor and analyze cross-border giving. We celebrate the important
accessed at: https://www.issuelab.org/libraries/foundation_center/ global footprint of American foundations and hope this data and analysis
international_grantmaking_by_us_foundations. accurately captures the challenges and opportunities for U.S. grantmakers
working internationally today.
Methodology
This analysis is based on grants data from Foundation Center’s research sample, grantmakers. Grants to grantmakers are included when adding up the total
FC 1000, which includes all grants of $10,000 or more reported by 1,000 grant dollars awarded by individual foundations.
of the largest U.S. foundations. For the purposes of this analysis, a grant is
For community foundations, discretionary grants are included and donor-
considered international if it’s for a non-U.S. recipient or for a U.S. recipient for
advised grants are included only when provided by the foundation. Grants to
international programs or programs implemented abroad.
individuals are not included.
The geographic distribution of grants is determined by the geographic area
Grants may benefit multiple subjects, and may therefore be counted more
served by each grant. In instances where this information is not available, the
than once.
geographic focus is based on the location of the recipient organization.
Data on bi- and multi-lateral aid are sourced from the Development Assistance
To avoid double counting grant dollars, the analysis of aggregate grantmaking
Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
for specific regions or issue areas does not include grants awarded to other
(OECD). These data can be accessed from http://stats.oecd.org.
In February 2018 Foundation Center’s grants database contained more All the data are processed and indexed according to the facets and
than 8.6 million grant records worth more than $400 billion. The vast codes in the Philanthropy Classification System (PCS), which include
majority of grants in the database—about 97%—represent grantmaking geographic location or area served by organizations and programs,
of U.S.-based foundations. support strategies, subjects, populations served, organization type,
and transaction type. Starting in 2015, all the grants in the database
• Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax form 990. All U.S. foundations
are coded through an automated process with select review by data
are required to submit this form, which contains information about
experts. This process is trained for accuracy with a supervised machine
each grant awarded by the foundation. The majority of the data in
learning model that draws on Foundation Center’s 60 years of experience
Foundation Center’s database are derived from these records.
in manually indexing information about grantmaking. Each grant in the
• Grants reported directly to Foundation Center through the database is assigned all relevant codes, which means one grant can be
eReporting program. Foundations enrolled in this program share data counted towards support for multiple subjects, populations, or strategies.
about their grantmaking directly with Foundation Center. This simultaneous coding allows for exploration of how funding for
multiple subjects, geographies, populations, and strategies intersect.
• Publicly available sources. Foundation Center also collects publicly
available information about grantmaking, including from open
databases and news sources.
$35.4 B $6.3 B
$7.2 B
$130.4 B (27.1%)
$5.2 B
$4.5 B
total giving
2011-2015 2015 INT’L 2008 2009 2010 2011
$604.5 K
2002
$200.9 K Both overall and int’l grantmaking resumed a
long-term trend of growth
in 2011 after a two-year decrease following
the financial crisis.
36% 29%
DOMESTIC INT’L INCREASE INCREASE
29.9%
30% 28.4%
25.9% 26.3%
25.5%
24.5%
25%
22.2% 22.5% 25.3%
20% 19.0%
20.5%
16.1%
17.5%
15% 13.9%
5%
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation accounted year period. When excluding Gates, international giving did not recover
for 51% of international giving from 2011 to 2015 and the 2012 to pre-crisis levels until 2012, before decreasing slightly and reaching
decrease in overall international giving was largely due to a spike in their a high of nearly $4 billion in 2015. The growth in the average size of
grantmaking in 2011. When Gates’ grantmaking is excluded from the international grants also holds when excluding Gates, with an increase of
dataset, international giving grew at a slower rate (21%) during the five- 19% from $240,701 in 2011 to $285,992 in 2015.
$10 B
$9.3 B
$8 B
$7.2 B
$6.8 B
$6.4 B
$6.3 B
$6 B $5.7 B
$5.3 B
$5.2 B $5.2 B
$4.5 B
$4.3 B
$3.9 B
$4 B
$3.5 B
$3.0 B $3.1 B
$2.9 B
$2.7 B
$2.4 B $2.3 B $2.2 B
$2.3 B
$2.1 B
$2.0 B
$2 B $1.6 B
$1.2 B
$1.0 B
$664.7 M
$537.7 M
$198.2 M
$54.2 M $97.4 M
$43.4 M $45.7 M $50.7 M $33.3 M $35.2 M $51.1 M
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
$35.4 B
total international
grant dollars
2011-2015
$67.9 M
1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $ 17,990,304,573 1. The Coca-Cola Foundation, Inc. $ 286,374,001
8. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation $ 481,419,773 8. The Wal-Mart Foundation, Inc. $ 77,604,642
9. Bloomberg Philanthropies $ 402,289,429 9. Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies Contribution Fund $ 65,336,738
10. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation $ 395,144,642 10. The Goldman Sachs Foundation $ 64,116,151
11. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation $ 349,850,602 11. The Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Inc. $ 61,980,053
12. Howard G. Buffett Foundation $ 345,016,114 12. The PepsiCo Foundation, Inc. $ 60,806,336
2. Foundation For The Carolinas $ 66,179,379 2. Open Doors International, Inc. $ 105,101,352
5. The New York Community Trust $ 27,332,766 5. The Packard Humanities Institute $ 22,508,024
9. Greater Kansas City Community Foundation $ 18,513,137 9. The Conservation Land Trust $ 12,882,200
10. The Chicago Community Trust $ 15,680,026 10. The Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation $ 6,100,000
11. The Columbus Foundation and Affiliated Organizations $ 14,382,053 11. Gordon Foundation $ 1,845,000
12. The San Diego Foundation $ 13,173,690 12. Waterford Foundation $ 911,000
Note: In some rare cases a given foundations’ international giving may not be available in
Foundation Center’s annual research set for a given grant year.
$3.7 B (10.6%)
$6.3 B (17.7%)
Large grants awarded by
POLICY, ADVOCACY
Bill & Melinda AND SYSTEMS REFORM
Gates Foundation
for polio vaccine development $9.5 B (26.7%)
were responsible for a large
share of the increase in funding RESEARCH
for program development. AND EVALUATION
Note: Each grant may benefit multiple strategies.
As a result, figures do not add up to 100 percent. $13.7 B (38.7%)
International Giving Remains Project-Focused
Most international grants from U.S. foundations support specific projects responsive to changing contexts that impact their work, without seeking
or programs, despite continued calls from non-profit leaders to increase funder approval.1
general support grants.
1 See for example: Koob, A., Ingulfsen, I., Tolson, B. Facilitating Financial
Does project support, as opposed to general support grants, hinder Sustainability: Funder Approaches to Facilitating CSO Financial Sustainability.
LINC, Peace Direct, and Foundation Center, 2018. Bell, J., Masoka, J., Zimmerman,
non-profits? A growing body of research suggests unrestricted S. Nonprofit sustainability: Making strategic decisions for financial viability.
funding is critical to the effectiveness and sustainability of civil San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 2010; Goggins, A., Howard, D. “The Nonprofit
Starvation Cycle.” Stanford Social Innovation Review Fall 2009; House, M., Krehely,
society organizations. This is because general support grants allow J., 2005. Not All Grants Are Created Equal: Why Nonprofits Need General Operating
organizations to cover the full costs of doing their work, which improves Support from Foundations. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy;
Jagpal, N., Laskowski, K., 2013. The State of General Operating Support 2011.
their overall financial sustainability by allowing them to be nimble and
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
U.S.-BASED INTERMEDIARY
$20.5 B (57.9%)
U.S.-BASED INTERMEDIARY
48,965 (66.7%)
DIRECT
16,948 (23.1%)
$4.1 B (11.7%)
GENERAL SUPPORT DIRECT TO LOCAL ORGS GENERAL SUPPORT DIRECT TO LOCAL ORGS
$381.8 M (9.2% of DIRECT FUNDING / 1.1% OF TOTAL) 2,002 (11.8% of DIRECT FUNDING / 2.7% OF TOTAL)
Calls for aid to localize so that more funds flow directly to civil society • Multilateral institutions working globally, such as funding through the
groups is not a new debate. This analysis shows that U.S. foundations World Health Organization.
continue to fund primarily through intermediaries. Further, direct grants
• Research institutions conducting public health research or vaccination
to local organizations were substantially smaller in size, averaging just programs targeted at specific countries that differ from the country
under $242K, while grants to intermediaries averaged just over $554K. where they are headquartered.
However, it’s important to note that these intermediaries vary in type and
DEFINITIONS
structure and our data included a variety of intermediary organizations,
U.S. BASED INTERMEDIARY: refers to grants awarded to U.S.-based
such as:
organizations for work implemented in or focused on another country.
• INGOs operating programs in a different country than the country
NON-U.S. BASED INTERMEDIARY: refers to grants awarded to an
where they are headquartered.
organization based outside the U.S., but for work focused on or implemented
• U.S. public charities re-granting funds directly to local organizations. in a different country that the country where that organization is based.
To avoid double-counting dollars, these grantmaking public charities are
not part of Foundation Center’s research set but represent an important DIRECT: refers to grants awarded to organizations based in the country
group of funders specifically focused on channeling funds directly to which the grant was serving.
local organizations. GENERAL SUPPORT DIRECT TO LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: general
• Organizations indigenous to their geographic region but working across support grants to organizations based in the country which the grant
countries, i.e. not just in the country where they are headquartered. was serving.
$6 B $1.2 B $1 B
$5.4 B $1.1 B
$838.5 M $866.4 M
$795.2 M
$5 B $1 B $929.1 M
$872.1 M $800 M $691.5 M
$4.0 B $662.7 M
$760.1 M $768.9 M $772.3 M
$4 B $800 M $745.9 M
$3.3 B $675.4 M $600 M $650.0 M
$3.5 B $604.8 M $584.5 M
$3 B $600 M
$200 M
$1 B $200 M
$854.3 M
$709.0 M $691.0 M $756.9 M $740.2 M
0 0 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
0 0 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
$241.7 M
$500 M $480.0 M $250 M $80 M
$72.6 M
$203.5 M $70 M
$397.5 M $241.7 M $188.6 M $188.0 M
$400 M $200 M $178.7 M
$352.5 M $203.5 M $60 M $63.9 M
$184.6 M $48.3 M $50.7 M $51.2 M
$358.6 M
$300 M $338.0 M $150 M $166.2 M $161.3 M $50 M $44.0 M
$48.3 M $48.4 M
$40 M $43.4 M
$197.7 M $41.6 M
$200 M $100 M $30 M
0 0 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
LGBTQ PEOPLE
Note: Figures represent only grants that could be identified as serving specific populations and these figures
do not reflect all giving benefiting these groups. In addition, grants may benefit multiple population groups.
KE Y FACTS: U.S. F OUN DAT ION F UNDING F OR R E P R ODU CTI V E HE ALTH CAR E , 201 1 – 2 0 1 5
$1.0 B
International giving INT’L RHC GIVING
DOMESTIC for reproductive
health care grew
total
int’l
$3.1 B (8.7%)
$4.4 B $1.4 B (30.5%)
more than 2x
giving
total
reproductive as a share of total
health care
giving INTERNATIONAL international giving
from 5% in 2011 to
$3.1 B (69.5%) 11% in 2015.
INT’L RHC GIVING
total
int’l
health
$3.1 B (16.6%)
$362.2 M giving
$336.6 M
In 2009 the Obama administration reversed the global gag rule. The and other non-government donors from providing support
rule restricted foreign NGOs from using any of their own, non-U.S. for reproductive health care to NGOs that rely on U.S. federal
Government funds to provide, counsel, or refer for abortions if funds to sustain other parts of their operations and programs.
they were also receiving funds from the U.S. government for other The increase in reproductive health care funding in the years
activities. While the use of U.S. Government funds for these services immediately following the reversal is suggestive of the gag rule’s
has been restricted since 1973, the gag rule prevented foundations effect on non-government funding flows.
$835.6 M
CLIMATE CHANGE
$1.3 B
GRANT SIZE
AVERAGE INT’L
total giving
$1.3 B total int’l $835.6 M domestic $480.8 M
giving giving
2011-201
1% 5 (1.0%) 2011-201
2.4% 5 (2.4%) 2011-201
0.5% 5 (0.5%)
$1.5 B
$1 B
ENVIRONMENT Note: We know that at least 64% of total U.S. foundation giving for climate
DOMESTIC change from 2011 to 2015 was international, meaning it was reported as
CLEAN ENERGY having a specified non-U.S. geographic focus. This proportion decreased
INTERNATIONAL by 12% from 2011 to 2015, reaching a high of 85% in 2012, the same year
CLIMATE CHANGE
that overall climate change funding was at its highest during the time period.
SOUTH & CENTRAL ASIA 17 environment on funding flows and suggest a more complex relationship
19
questions as they determine their strategies for supporting organizations
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
in difficult environments: Why does a significant amount of funding reach
How do governments restrict civil society organizations’ access to certain difficult environments, and not others? Are any of the strategies
international funding? In some countries, national governments require and mechanisms for channeling funds to countries with difficult legal
pre-approval of all grants made or grantees must have prior permission to environments transferable across country contexts?
receive foreign funds. They can also mandate that all foreign funding must
be routed through government entities. Other countries stigmatize local 2 Enabling environment for cross-border flows score for each country, from the
organizations receiving foreign support with “foreign agent” laws. Yet 2015 Index of Philanthropic Freedom, Hudson Institute, https://globalindices.
iupui.edu/environment/. The analysis is based on data on the enabling environment
other countries enact foreign funding caps for non-profits and taxation
for philanthropy across 64 countries for the time period from 2014 to 2015.
of foreign funding. Governments also refer to counterterrorism and anti-
3 Rutzen, Doublas, “Aid Barriers and the Rise of Philanthropic Protectionism”,
money laundering as justifications for onerous and complicated reporting International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law / vol. 17, no. 1, March 2015 / 1.
and registration requirements for grantmakers and grantees. http://www.icnl.org/research/journal/vol17ss1/Rutzen.pdf
$391.3 M
$391.3 M (1.1%)
$612.1 M (63.9%)
total int’l
1%
giving
2012-2015
total disaster
giving
2012-2015
$220.7 M (36.1%)
2012 2012 was the first year that
$250 M disaster giving was tracked through
Measuring the State of
$225.7 M
Disaster Philanthropy.
$200 M
$192.3 M
(85.2%)
$158.1 M
$150 M
$100 M
$99.8 M
(63.1%)
$364.O K
$50 M $53.4 M
$45.9 M (45.7%)
(41.2%)
AVERAGE GRANT SIZE
DOMESTIC
$200.3 K
0
2012 2013 2014 2015
DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL
$100 M
$79.1 M
$75.9 M
$64.9 M
$50 M
$27.2 M
$26.6 M
$12.1 M $10.8 M
$7.7 M
0
2012 2013 2014 2015
WESTERN EUROPE
$2.0 B (5.6%)
6,507 grants (8.9%)
CARIBBEAN
$343.4 M (1.0%)
1,904 grants (2.6%)
$2.7 B (7.7%)
8,259 grants (11.2%)
SUB-SAHARAN
AFRICA MIDDLE EAST &
NORTH AFRICA
GLOBAL PROGRAMS
The average grant size was $765 K,
higher than average for overall giving.
$35.4 B
$18.6 B 64% of funding to Global Programs came from
total int’l
giving
2011-2015
(52.6%) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
24,349 grants (33.2%)
1. India $ 1.4 B
2. Israel $ 1.2 B
3. Nigeria $ 1.0 B
4. China $ 892.6 M
7. Ethiopia $ 459.1 M
9. Kenya $ 406.3 M
2. Switzerland $ 5.4 B
ASIA & PACIFIC
$6.6 B (18.7%)
3. United Kingdom $ 1.7 B
6. Kenya $ 491.2 M
LOWER-MIDDLE UPPER-MIDDLE
INCOME INCOME
$4.3 B $3.2 B
38.6% 28.1% 7. Canada $ 475.1 M
8. Nigeria $ 450.5 M
HIGH INCOME
$1.9 B
$3.1 B 27.8%
LOW INCOME 9. China $ 364.3 M
16.7%
Note: Percentages reflect proportion of dollars that were possible to allocate to specific 10. Israel $ 350.7 M
countries. Of the total $35.4 billion in international grant dollars from 2011 to 2015,
$11.2 billion (about 32 %) could be allocated to a specific country. Grants may benefit
multiple countries. As a result, figures do not add up to 100 percent.
$1 B $1.2 B
$1.1 B $400 K $429.8 K
$500 M $271.2 K
$200 K $226.4 K $231.8 K
$542.5 M $546.9 M $225.5 K
$495.0 M $183.7 K
$396.5 M $386.0 M
0 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
T O P FUNDE R S , 2011-2015
BY DOLLAR AMOUNT BY NUMBER OF GRANTS
1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $ 4.3 B 1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 977 grants
2. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation $ 240.1 M 2. Ford Foundation 930 grants
4. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation $ 190.8 M 4. Foundation to Promote Open Society 485 grants
5. The Rockefeller Foundation $ 162.1 M 5. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation 334 grants
Asia & Pacific includes the following countries: Afghanistan, Australia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, North Korea, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Cook Islands, Fiji, Hong Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Sri
Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Tibet (autonomous region), Timor-Leste, Tonga,
Islands, Micronesia, Federated States of, Mongolia, Myanmar/Burma, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Vietnam.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
INT’L GIVING BY POPULATION FOCUS, 2011-2015 TOP COUNTRIES BY GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS, 2011-2015
AVERAGE % CHANGE
CHILDREN & YOUTH
GRANT SIZE 2011-2015 1. India $ 1.4 B
$2.4 B $ 977.1 K -4.5%
2. China $ 892.6 M
WOMEN & GIRLS
CARIBBEAN
24% of funding to the Caribbean came from
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
$343.4 M
$35.4 B (1.0%) 91% of funding to the Caribbean was channeled
total int’l
91%
giving through U.S. organizations.
2011-2015
0 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
T O P FUNDE R S, 2011-2015
BY DOLLAR AMOUNT BY NUMBER OF GRANTS
1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $ 81.0 M 1. Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies Contribution Fund 164 grants
Caribbean includes the following countries: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Islands, Lesser Antilles, Martinique, Montserrat, Northern Saint-Martin,
Aruba, Bahama Islands, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Virgin Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
Islands, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Greater Saint-Barthélemy, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands,
Antilles, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Jamaica, Leeward Antilles, Leeward Windward Islands.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENT
EDUCATION
U.S.-BASED
$26.7 M $ 119.1 K +86.8% INTERMEDIARY U.S.-BASED
INTERMEDIARY
$313.4 M
AGRICULTURE & FOOD SECURITY
(91.2%) 1,696 grants
$15.1 M $ 225.7 M +26.6% (89.1%)
HUMAN RIGHTS
INT’L GIVING BY POPULATION FOCUS, 2011-2015 TOP COUNTRIES BY GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS, 2011-2015
AVERAGE % CHANGE
CHILDREN & YOUTH
GRANT SIZE 2011-2015 1. Haiti $ 128.6 M
$42.7 M $ 113.5 K +140.8%
2. Cuba $ 13.9 M
WOMEN & GIRLS
EASTERN EUROPE,
CENTRAL ASIA & RUSSIA Foundation to Promote Open Society
was the top funder, accounting for 33% of funding to
$35.4 B (1.6%) 22% of giving to Eastern Europe, Central Asia & Russia
total int’l was for human rights, whereas just 5% of overall
giving giving is for human rights.
2011-2015
FO UNDA TI O N G R A N T D O LLA R S , 2 0 1 1 - 2 0 1 5 A V E R A G E G R A N T S IZ E , 2 0 1 1 - 2 0 15
Including the Bill & Melinda Excluding the Bill & Melinda Including the Bill & Melinda Excluding the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation Gates Foundation Gates Foundation Gates Foundation
$200 M $350 K $333.4 K
$164.4 M $300 K
$327.8 K
$150 M $137.5 M
$161.3 M $250 K $223.6 K $220.9 K $211.8 K
$135.4 M $200 K $220.8 K
$90.6 M $93.8 M $163.4 K $211.8 K
$100 M $84.0 M $192.1 K
$150 K
$93.8 M $161.1 K
$82.5 M $77.8 M
$50 M $100 K
$50 K
0 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1. Foundation to Promote Open Society $ 185.6 M 1. Foundation to Promote Open Society 325 grants
2. Open Society Institute $ 77.7 M 2. Charles Stewart Mott Foundation 303 grants
3. Charles Stewart Mott Foundation $ 47.1 M 3. Open Society Institute 156 grants
4. Carnegie Corporation of New York $ 30.8 M 4. The Coca-Cola Foundation, Inc. 154 grants
5. The Coca-Cola Foundation, Inc. $ 29.5 M 5. Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. 152 grants
Eastern Europe, Central Asia, & Russia includes the following countries: Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland,
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
EDUCATION
NON-U.S.-BASED NON-U.S.-BASED
$93.0 M $ 239.2 K +5.7% INTERMEDIARY INTERMEDIARY
$151.8 M 394 grants
AGRICULTURE & FOOD SECURITY (26.6%) (16.0%)
HUMAN RIGHTS
RELIGION
GENERAL SUPPORT
$26.7 M $ 158.1 K -62.3% GENERAL SUPPORT
DIRECT TO LOCAL ORGS DIRECT TO LOCAL ORGS
$65.5 M (27.2% of DIRECT) 260 grants (22.4% of DIRECT)
PEACE & SECURITY
INT’L GIVING BY POPULATION FOCUS, 2011-2015 TOP COUNTRIES BY GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS, 2011-2015
AVERAGE % CHANGE
CHILDREN & YOUTH
GRANT SIZE 2011-2015 1. Russia $ 119.9 M
$61.0 M $ 127.4 K +15.4%
2. Poland $ 46.6 M
WOMEN & GIRLS
$333.8 K $329.5 K
$625.0 M $361.8 K $308.3 K
$586.3 M $599.4 M
$600 M $300 K
$284.7 K
$580.3 M $475.1 M $289.7 K
$543.4 M $425.9 M
$247.9 K $256.9 K
$400 M $200 K
$378.4 M
$347.3 M $180.2 K
$316.0 M
$200 M $100 K
0 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
T O P FUNDE R S, 2011-2015
BY DOLLAR AMOUNT BY NUMBER OF GRANTS
1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $ 571.3 M 1. Ford Foundation 1,181 grants
2. Walton Family Foundation $ 342.2 M 2. Foundation to Promote Open Society 414 grants
4. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation $ 192.2 M 4. Citi Foundation 255 grants
5. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation $ 161.9 M 5. Seattle Foundation 228 grants
Included in Latin America & Mexico are the following countries: El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama,
Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DIRECT
2,919 grants
RELIGION (35.3%)
$547.6 M
$22.9 M $ 103.5 K -40.5% (20.2%)
INT’L GIVING BY POPULATION FOCUS, 2011-2015 TOP COUNTRIES BY GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS, 2011-2015
AVERAGE % CHANGE
CHILDREN & YOUTH
GRANT SIZE 2011-2015 1. Mexico $ 782.8 M
$257.6 M $ 171.9 K +5.6%
2. Brazil $ 315.5 M
WOMEN & GIRLS
$100 K
$100 M
$50 K
0 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
T O P FUNDE R S , 2011-2015
BY DOLLAR AMOUNT BY NUMBER OF GRANTS
1. Adelson Family Foundation $ 185.8 M 1. The Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Foundation Inc 318 grants
2. The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust $ 114.4 M 2. The Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Foundation 280 grants
4. The Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Foundation Inc $ 64.8 M 4. Ted Arison Family Foundation USA, Inc. 237 grants
5. Ted Arison Family Foundation USA, Inc. $ 64.0 M 5. Foundation to Promote Open Society 227 grants
Middle East & North Africa includes the following countries: Algeria, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab
Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Emirates, West Bank/Gaza Strip (Palestinian Territories), Yemen.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENT
U.S.-BASED
$50.1 M $ 294.2 K -37.1% INTERMEDIARY
U.S.-BASED
$1.1 B INTERMEDIARY
EDUCATION
(65.1%) 5,079 grants
$380.5 M $ 263.3 K +16.9%
(74.1%)
AGRICULTURE & FOOD SECURITY
HUMAN RIGHTS
NON-U.S.-BASED
$135.6 M $ 172.2 K +11.7% INTERMEDIARY
$181.2 M NON-U.S.-BASED
(10.9%) INTERMEDIARY
SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
497 grants
$64.1 M (7.2%)
$ 281.2 K +130.2%
DIRECT
RELIGION $400.9 M DIRECT
(24.1%) 1,281 grants
$407.7 M $ 509.7 K -28.2% (18.7%)
INT’L GIVING BY POPULATION FOCUS, 2011-2015 TOP COUNTRIES BY GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS, 2011-2015
AVERAGE % CHANGE
CHILDREN & YOUTH
GRANT SIZE 2011-2015 1. Israel $ 1.2 B
$339. 5 M $ 291.9 K +30.2%
2. Egypt $ 100.6 M
WOMEN & GIRLS
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
72% of funding to Sub-Saharan Africa came from
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
$9.0 B
$35.4 B (25.4%) 23% of funding to Sub-Saharan Africa was for
total int’l
giving
agriculture and food security programs.
2011-2015
0 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
T O P FUNDE R S, 2011-2015
BY DOLLAR AMOUNT BY NUMBER OF GRANTS
1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $ 6.5 B 1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 1,709 grants
4. Foundation to Promote Open Society $ 202.2 M 4. Segal Family Foundation 325 grants
5. The Rockefeller Foundation $ 185.6 M 5. Silicon Valley Community Foundation 275 grants
Sub-Saharan Africa includes the following countries: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania,
Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and
Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South
Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Republic of Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
RELIGION
2,459 grants
(24.9%)
$109.5 M $ 236.4 K +59.2% DIRECT
$930.4 M (10.4%)
PEACE & SECURITY GENERAL SUPPORT
GENERAL SUPPORT DIRECT TO LOCAL ORGS
DIRECT TO LOCAL ORGS 280 grants (11.4% of DIRECT)
$35.4 M $ 340.5 K +336.2% $48.6 M (5.2% of DIRECT)
INT’L GIVING BY POPULATION FOCUS, 2011-2015 TOP COUNTRIES BY GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS, 2011-2015
AVERAGE % CHANGE
CHILDREN & YOUTH
GRANT SIZE 2011-2015 1. Nigeria $ 1.0 B
$3.0 B $ 1.1 M +20.5%
2. Ethiopia $ 459.1 M
WOMEN & GIRLS
WESTERN EUROPE
30% of funding to Western Europe went towards
health programs.
$2.0 B
$35.4 B (5.6%) 22% of funding to Western Europe was targeted at
total int’l
giving
children & youth.
2011-2015
$414.5 M $424.1 K
$400 M $376.1 M $376.6 M $400 M
$343.3 K
$311.7 M
$367.5 M $283.0 K
$300 M $300 M $276.7 K
$299.5 M
$273.7 M $285.1 M $221.9 K $270.7 K
$200 M $200 M
$249.5 K
$224.5 M $214.5 K $210.7 K
$196.1 K
$100 M $100 M
0 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
T O P FUNDE R S, 2011-2015
BY DOLLAR AMOUNT BY NUMBER OF GRANTS
1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $ 529.0 M 1. John Templeton Foundation 544 grants
2. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation $ 179.6 M 2. The Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Inc. 303 grants
3. The Oak Foundation U.S.A. $ 94.3 M 3. State Street Foundation, Inc. 266 grants
4. John Templeton Foundation $ 81.8 M 4. The JPMorgan Chase Foundation 245 grants
5. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation $ 74.6 M 5. Silicon Valley Community Foundation 229 grants
Western Europe includes the following countries: Andorra, Austria, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway,
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
U.S.-BASED
U.S.-BASED INTERMEDIARY
$209.8 M $ 308.1 K +195.9%
INTERMEDIARY 2,195 grants
$578.9 M (33.7%)
ENVIRONMENT
(29.3%)
$331.4 M $ 689.1 K -68.6%
EDUCATION
NON-U.S.-BASED
$365.0 M $ 228.4 K +49.1% INTERMEDIARY
NON-U.S.-BASED 762 grants (11.7%)
INTERMEDIARY
AGRICULTURE & FOOD SECURITY $177.0 M (8.9%)
$50.4 M $ 573.1 K +7.0%
HUMAN RIGHTS
DIRECT
$92.9 M $ 225.0 K +101.0% DIRECT 3,409 grants
$694.4 M (52.4%)
SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
(35.1%)
$109.6 M $ 238.8 K -37.3%
RELIGION
INT’L GIVING BY POPULATION FOCUS, 2011-2015 TOP COUNTRIES BY GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS, 2011-2015
AVERAGE % CHANGE
CHILDREN & YOUTH
GRANT SIZE 2011-2015 1. United Kingdom $ 598.7 M
$436.0 M $ 392.1 K +90.2%
2. Germany $ 107.6 M
WOMEN & GIRLS
$3.6 B +53.4%
$17.0 B +37.8%
$2.8 B -31.4%
$4.9 B +80.3%
$971.5 M -30.6%
$791.6 M -40.0%
$2.9 B +27.1%
$1.4 B -7.8%
$248.9 M +45.9%
$1.2 B +2.0%
$652.5 M +24.7%
$827.9 M -22.3%
$383.1 M +18.2%
$2.1 B +48.3%
$3.5 B +3.9%
$643.0 M -30.9%
Achieving the SDGs requires more than just governments and the price foundations are already working globally to address issues and topics across
tag is high—experts estimate it will cost more than $4 trillion per year the goals, such as alleviating hunger and investing in quality education. By
from 2015 to 2030. Foundations are already beginning to partner linking their existing programs and aligning future strategies with the SDG
with UN agencies, the private sector, civil society, and government to framework, U.S. foundations working globally can join important conversations
leverage their resources and work collectively to changing the world by on how best to achieve more effective development outcomes for all.
2030 in order to truly “leave no one behind.”
Learn more about how foundations
Foundation Center estimates that foundations will spend at least
are supporting the Sustainable
$364 B on the SDGs between 2015 and 2030 and are on track to Development Goals on
possibly surpass that estimate. This data shows that many U.S. sdgfunders.org
$60.5 B +12.1%
$120.0 B +4.4%
$71.4 B -13.1%
$3.7 B -24.3%
$39.7 B -0.7%
$52.7 B +17.3%
$50.5 B +7.1%
$18.6 B +6.8%
$2.1 B -0.6%
$113.2 B +49.3%
$2.1 B +20.0%
$8.8 B +130.3%
$7.1 B -14.5%
$29.1 B -16.4%
$102.6 B -10.8%
$19.9 B -19.3%
Why report on funding by SDGs before the goals went into effect?
The SDGs formally did not go into effect until January 2016. Still, • How did foundation funding for SDGs differ from ODA from 2011 to 2015?
the distribution of foundation funding by SDGs during the five year
• Based on this, which goals will be strategic areas for foundations to focus
period before will serve as a baseline for tracking U.S. philanthropic
on going forward?
efforts toward the achievement of the global goals.
• Were there strategic reasons for the distribution of funding from 2011 to
Foundations should consider the following in reviewing the figures:
2015? If so, why, and do the same strategic considerations still hold true?