By

Most people in the philanthropic world are familiar with the 5% payout requirement that nonprofits must observe to maintain their tax exempt status. Therefor, it’s quite natural to assume that foundations take that 5% rate as scripture and rarely deviate from it. The filings of some of the largest foundations – Ford, Lilly, MacArthur to name a few – show that they steer close to 5%, which would seem to confirm the prescribed rate as industry standard. Most foundation observers would allow that a few foundations, notably Gates, which puts out about 12% of assets each year, might skew the numbers upward, but a 5% payout rate should be about right. For many, this might have be the end of the discussion, but we found that the numbers told a different story. While it is true that most foundations stick close to 5%, in aggregate, they pay out a far higher proportion of their assets. In fact, foundations have averaged a little over 8% of their 3 year average assets over the past decade, including throughout the financial crisis of 2008

At first glance, it may seem contradictory both to say that most foundations pay out 5%, and foundations overall pay out 8% of 3 year average assets, so how does one reconcile the difference?

**Adding Context**

But, when we tried to reconcile the 5% rate with other data sources, there was a large and consistent difference. As seen in the chart below, Giving USA, which tracks all philanthropic support nationally, and FoundationMark which sources data from over 45,000 foundations from the bottom up, found that giving was substantially more than 5%. In fact, Giving USA and FoundationMark, both reported giving about 50% higher than the 5% mandate.

After establishing that foundations payout far more than the required 5% of assets, we set about lookig Calculating a ratio is pretty straightforward proposition, requiring only a . In the case of measuring disbursement rates, the numerator is the total amount of giving for the the year, but what about the denominator?

The simplest approach would be to merely divide the amount of grants and operating expenses by reported assets at year end. While this technique might seem like the intuitive solution, it has several flaws, the first of which is that the most recently reported assets reflect the asset value after grants and expenses have been paid.

An improved approach considers the average asset levels throughout the year as the denominator. After all, foundations are asked to provide their average monthly asset values as a part of the calculation to prove that they are in compliance with the 5% rule (there is more to the 5% calculation than that, but that is outside the scope of this note). Using average assets greatly narrows the difference in disbursement rates from year to year.

Rather than stopping at a simple average, we looked at other time periods and found that a rolling 3 year average of assets as the denominator showed the lowest variance in disbursement rates from year to year. Our findings are consistent with the policy that many of the largest (and thus biggest grantmakers) use 3 year average assets in budgeting their grants to avoid large swings in funding charitable operations.

Interested in a free FoundationMark report on your foundation’s investment performance? click** here**

E-Mail: info@FoundationAdvocate.com