June 1994
Connections
Philanthropy Journal of North Carolina
Philanthropy by the numbers
Rise in foundation giving tops aQ sources in 1993
The American Association of Fund
Raising Counsel’s annual
“Giving USA” survey shows that
foundation giving rose faster in
1993 than giving from ail other
sources. The survey shows giv
ing to nonprofits by individuals,
foundations and corporations
reached $126.2 billion last year.
By Barbara Solow
I— oundation giving to U.S. tax-
^ exempt organizations rose
/ dramatically last year while
giving by corporations remained flat.
Those are among the key findings
of the American Association of Fund
Raising Counsel’s annual “Giving
USA” survey of philanthropy.
The survey, released last month,
shows foundation
giving reached
$9.21 billion last
year - an increase
GIVING
of more than 6.5 percent over 1992
levels.
Foundation giving rose taster
than giving by all other sources com
bined and a trend toward awarding of
large, multi-year grants continued.
By contrast, giving by corpora
tions stayed at $5.92 biUion in 1993.
The amount that company founda
tions paid to charitable organizations
exceeded the amount they received
from their parent companies — a pat
tern that has continued in nine of the
past 10 years.
Charitable giving by individuals,
foundations and corporations in the
U.S. reached $126.2 bilhon last year -
an increase of 3.55 percent, \\duch is
about the level of inflation in the ser
vices sector.
Arts, culture and humanities
organizations saw modest gains in
giving, while environmental and
wildlife groups saw smaller increas
es, compared to 1992.
Giving to reUgion rose by about 4
percent to $57.1 billion; education
rose by 5.5 percent to $15 billion;
health by 5.7 percent to $10.8 billion;
and human services by 7.7 percent to
$12.47 billion, the survey showed.
After a slowdown in growth in
1992, giving to international pro
grams rose by 8.45 percent to $1.86
biUion. While cor
porate giving was
flat in the U.S.,
there was a rise in
giving to overseas organizations.
Amoi^ the other key survey find
ings:
• Individuals gave 81 cents of
every charitable dollar or $102.5 bil-
Uon. Overall, giving was higher where
per capita income was high; where
residents were classified as liberal
rather than conservative; where pop
ulation was less dense; and where
distress levels were low.
• Charitable bequests rose by 4.87
GIVING IN THE U.S.A.
SOURCES OF CONTRIBUTIONS
In Billions
Corporations
4.7%S5.92
Foundations
7.3%S9.21
Bequests 6.8%
$8.54
USES OF CONTRIBUTIONS
In Billions
Source: AAFRC Tnjsl for Philontfiropy
Environment/Wildlife
2.5% S319
Arts 7.6%
$9.57
International Affairs
1.5% $1.86
Human Services
9.9% $12.47
Public/Society
Benefit 4.3%
,$5.44
Health 8.6% $10.83
Unclassified
8.4% $10.92
Education
11.9% $15.07
GIVING 1980-1993
In Billions (Adjusted for inflation)
Sioojs^
$126.22
'80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93
percent in 1993 to about $8.54 bilhon.
• Corporations continue to give
most of their charitable dollars to
education, followed by human ser
vices.
• Athough they account for only 1
percent of U.S. foundations, commu
nity foundations are making an
impact in helping nonprofits build
endowments.
• There are now more than a mil
lion organizations classified as tax
exempt by the Internal Revenue
Service. Of those, 575,690 are in the
501(c)(3) category commonly known
as “charities.”
In addition to studying giving pat
terns, the survey also highlighted
important developments in the non
profit sector.
Among the issues mentioned were
the need for self-regulation through
such vehicles as the “Donor’s BIU of
Rights” written by a consortium of
nonprofit fundraising groups; the
gro\^h in the number of “alternative
funds” that raise money for environ
mental, health and arts organiza
tions; and a rising interest in the giv
ing patterns of women.
In future issues, the Philan
thropy Journal will analyze the
results of the survey by giving area
and impact on North Carolina non
profits.
For copies of “Giving USA” call
AAFRC at (212) 354-5799.
Growing gaps
Poverty rates widen for North Carolina minorities
7 wo recent reports on the
economic status of North
Carolinians underscore the
growing gap between poverty rates
among whites and non-whites.
A report released last month by
the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation in
Winston-Salem concludes that
“poverty in North Carolina is exacer
bated by ongoing institutionalized
racism - the systematic exclusion of
individuals based on race.”
A new study by the North
Carolina Institute of Minority
Economic Development in Durham
also shows growing disparities in
pay, education and health of African
Americans and Native Americans
compared with whites in the state.
^ile the study, A Profile of
North Carolina’s African American
and Native Ameriean Populations
does not make specific recommenda
tions, its authors hope the results
wiU spark policy makers to devote
more attention to the needs of minor
ity communities.
“We want people to use this docu
ment as evidence that yes, race is an
issue,” says Andrea Harris, the
Institute’s president. “When people
look at race and economics they tend
to see it in terms of leveling the play
ing field instead of building the infra
structure. We need a new strategy.”
Among the study’s findings:
• The poverty rate for African
Americans was three times higher
than the rate tor whites
• The unemployment rate for
African Americans and Native
Americans was twice the rate of
whites
• Minorities made up 40 percent
of the population of the state’s five
poorest counties but only 27 pereent
of the population of the five wealthi
est counties.
The report by the Reynolds
Foundation concludes that while
poverty rates have dropped in recent
years, there are still reasons for con
cern.
Among the trends identified in
Beyond Poverty in North Carolina:
• An increasing number of fami
lies in the state are headed by sin^e
women, and poverty is becoming con
centrated in female-headed house
holds.
• More than a quarter of all fami
lies in North Carolina have incomes
that are below federal poverty levels
even though they have at least one
family member working full-time.
• The gap is widening between
poverty rates among minorities and
the rest of the population.
On the hopeful side, the report
contains lessons learned from the
Reynolds Foundation’s Opportunities
for Families Fund Initiative, \duch is
Look for POVERTY, page?
Philanthropy
Journal
of North Carolina
A Publication Of
The News and Observer
Foundation
215 S. McDoweU St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
(919) 829-8988
VOL. 1 No. 10
SUBSCRIPTION PRICES
lyear (12 issues) $57
2 years (24 issues) $104
3 years (36 issues) $143
Multiple-copy discounts
fi vft 11 Vtl
Call (919) 829-4763 for rates.
FOR SUBSCRIPTION
INFORMATION,
CALL (919) 829-4763
OR
(919) 829-8991.
Investing in culture
Conference to focus on support for arts
United arts funds raise money for
individual arts programs
through workplace giving, cor
porate contributions, individual
donations and more. With 10
united arts funds. North
Carolina has more funds than
any other state, and this year’s
national conference in RAeigh
is in part a celebration of the
state’s arts fundraising success.
By Katherine Noble
liaising money for operating
expenses is no easy task. Just
/ 1 ask one of the more than 200
representatives of united arts funds
who will gather in Raleigh next
month for the National Coalition of
United Arts Funds annual confer
ence.
Issues slated for discussion at the
conference, scheduled for July 22-25,
include the future of united arts
funds, expanded partnerships
between government and the arts,
and making the arts ,
more accessible.
Another issue
sure to be on every- ^
one’s mind is the decline in corporate
support for the arts.
“All of us bemoan the fact that
corporate giving is sliding, and that
continues to impact the fundraising
that we do in the community,” says
Linda Wilkerson, executive director
of Asheville’s Arts Alliance. “We’re at
one of those crossroads periods in
fundraising in general.”
That’s bad news for arts fundrais
ers because corporate dollars are the
mainstay of many united arts cam
paigns. Corporate support accounted
for 48.3 percent of the $87.4 million
united arts campaigns raised in
1992, according to United Arts
Fundraising, a publication of the
American Council for the Arts in New
York City. Tliat’s down from 1991,
when corporate dollars made up 50.9
percent of arts
fundraising.
On the post-
ARTS
tive side, corpo
rate giving was the only area of sup
port for the arts that declined in
1992, the most recent year for which
statistics are available. Contri
butions from private foundations,
individuals and government dona
tions increased in 1992, with govern
ment funding rising more than 25
percent.
The conference will give repre
sentatives from successful arts funds
- several of which are in North
Carolina - a chance to share fund
raising tips.
The Arts and Science Council of
Charlotte'Mecklenburg raised 31 per
cent more funds in 1992 than it did in
1991 - boasting the largest increase
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NON PROFIT
ARTS INDUSTRY IN U.S.
fxjiendtaes of itonjHofit arts S36.8 Sillioa
FaJ-Hraejobssapportsd ).3tt1lion
PoFsonai teme pid $25.2 Bfflioa
local loveraraeiit roMBoe $790 iitliofi
' StatB Govofamoat mmm $Ti BiBoa
! Federal iacoaie tax levsaoe f, S3,48illiO0
of any fund in the U.S.
Charlotte and Winston-Salem
raised $6.31 per capita and $5.88 per
capita, respectively, in 1992, more
than every other fund in the U.S.
except for Allied Arts of Greater
Chattanooga in Tennessee.
“There’s a general feeling that
Look for ARTS, page 11