National Center for

Family Philanthropy’s

RESULTS OF THE THIRD

NATIONAL BENCHMARK SURVEY
OF FAMILY FOUNDATIONS
Table of
Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................................................ 2

Notable Findings............................................................................................................................................... 5

Trends Across the Decade 2015 to 2025...............................................................9

Foundation Identity............................................................................................................................................................10

Grantmaking.......................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Reflection & Learning....................................................................................................................................................... 27

Family Dynamics................................................................................................................................................................ 30

Governance, Staff & Operations...................................................................................................................................34

Looking Ahead....................................................................................................................................................................47

Methodology....................................................................................................................................................... 54

Appendix.................................................................................................................................................................... 56

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................87
Introduction
In the quest to generate positive social change, family philanthropies
must navigate a multitude of decisions. When doing so, they face
diverse and sometimes competing perspectives. They also must
sort through an overwhelming amount of information to make good
decisions—and often, that information is too general or limited to be
useful. Clear and focused data goes a long way toward helping families
make confident decisions at each inflection point in their philanthropy.

The National Center for Family Philanthropy In certain ways, what we have found was
(NCFP) understands the importance of data in encouraging—there has been a distinct shift
making informed decisions. Beginning in 2015 from a donor-centric mindset to a community-
and every five years since, NCFP has conducted centric one. More donors are employing what we
a comprehensive study of the practices of are calling “principle-based” practices, meaning
philanthropic families.1 This year’s Trends report foundations are weaving accountability, equity,
provides us with a snapshot of the current field reflection and learning, and relationships into
and allows us to see how the field has evolved their governance, grantmaking, and operations.
during the past decade. By examining the data For example:
from 2015, 2020, and 2025, patterns begin to
emerge. In particular, NCFP was interested in • In 2025, foundation giving is less influenced
the ways in which the field has—or has not— by history, founder and family desires,
embraced and applied the four principles of and the interests of individual board
effective family philanthropy we identified members than in previous years. More and
through our previous research: accountability, more, giving is driven by philanthropic
equity, reflection and learning, and relationships. mission, program areas, and the needs of
grantseekers and the community.
Our 2025 survey of hundreds of family
philanthropies across the country affirms that • Compared to 2020 and 2015, foundations
over the past 10 years donors have made have reduced grantee requirements,
positive, if incremental, progress toward streamlined applications and reporting, and
effective practice. However, change has been conducted more research into prospective
too slow and too superficial to yield the lasting grantees before requesting proposals.
transformation we seek.

1
For the purposes of this report, all data labeled “2015” refers to data presented in NCFP’s 2015 Trends study (data collected in 2014) and
“2020” refers to data presented in the 2020 Trends study (data collected in 2019). Data presented here as “2025” were collected in 2024.

Trends 2025 | 2
 •M
 ore foundations say they have taken steps How We Define
to expand beyond grantmaking to become
“Family Philanthropy”
active learning institutions. The number of
foundations that solicit feedback from their NCFP defines family
grantees and communities has also risen. philanthropy as the act of
collective giving that is rooted in
•N
 early half of families surveyed have either
the values of a family, carrying
discussed or are considering discussing
the source of their wealth and how those forward its name and legacy, and
conversations could inform their strategy. engaging its members. A family
philanthropic enterprise can
That said, the slow pace of the past decade of
be two people or two hundred;
progress is insufficient to meet the pressing
it can span one generation
challenges of our current world—fighting climate
change, ensuring equity for all, preserving and or ten. It can be exclusively
promoting democracy in the United States directed by family or incorporate
and around the globe, eliminating hunger, independent and community
dismantling barriers to education, and much voices. In some cases, the
more. Solving these complex problems requires majority of a family foundation’s
action, not just intent. It requires capital and
board may comprise
coordination.
independent members.
The data in this report tells us that there is
capital yet to be unlocked, communities yet to
be included, and principle-based practices yet to
be adopted at the scale and speed necessary to
create the changes the field seeks. For example:

•T
 he rate at which foundations give general
operating support, multiyear grants, and
capacity-building grants has declined
steadily since 2015.

•B
 oards primarily recruit independent board
members through personal networks,
which may limit their ability to reach
diverse profiles and voices.

•F
 oundations communicate less than they
did five years ago about giving priorities,
grantmaking processes, feedback to
grantees, and more.

Trends 2025 | 3
Most concerning is that many foundations report Why We Focused on
that they plan to continue with the status quo.
Family Foundations
This report provides us with a decade’s worth This year, we asked participants
of perspective on where family foundations to identify their primary vehicle
were, where they are now, and where they are
for philanthropy, including a
heading. The data also raises questions that
foundation, a donor-advised fund
the numbers alone can’t answer. While we can
discern some clear patterns across the three (DAF), LLC, or other vehicle.
survey years, certain data points—such as a The overwhelming majority of
spike or dip in 2020—are harder to interpret. participants were those who used
(See Methodology, page 54, for more details.) a foundation as their primary
We’ll explore these questions in the coming vehicle, with very few responses
year and have also noted them here for your
coming from those who used
consideration.
other vehicles. Therefore, the
As you read and reflect on this report, we urge data in this report reflects only
you to consider how you might shape the story the responses from those whose
of Trends 2030. What principle-based changes primary giving vehicle is a
will you make to your operations, governance,
foundation. NCFP engages with
and grantmaking? In what new ways will you
hundreds of families across the
engage your family? How will you weave
learning and reflection into your everyday
field, and we know that many
activities and interactions with peers and families are embracing and
partners in your community? exploring operating structures
and governance models that
With intention and commitment, family
go beyond foundations. We
philanthropies can forge new trends for 2030.
aim to continue gathering data
Over the next five years, foundations that
embrace principle-based giving practices can about primary giving vehicles,
create an urgency to act, unlock critical capital, and we will examine the shifts
and powerfully propel significant impact. in operational structures
and governance models in
forthcoming reports.

Trends 2025 | 4
Notable
Findings
Foundation Identity
• Vehicle choice: More than half of families that chose a foundation as their primary vehicle
did so to establish a long-term family philanthropy legacy (55%). More than a third did so on the
advice of a lawyer or an estate planner.

• Changes in focus: More foundations today are issue focused (74%) as compared to 2015
(54%). Throughout the decade there has also been a consistent focus on geography, with nearly
two in three foundations (64% in each study) reporting a primary focus on geography.

• Role of founding donors: Founders still play a large role, with more than half
remaining active in the philanthropy (56%). Donor intent is still a strong influence in many
foundations—63% report following it “very closely” in terms of their focus.

• Asset sizes: There has been a significant increase in asset sizes, likely reflecting the effect of
historically strong markets. The number of respondents with $10 million or more in assets rose
from 30% to 47% over the course of the decade.

• Decisions about lifespan: Many more foundations have decided to limit the lifespan of
their philanthropy (from 9% of foundations in 2015 to 13% in 2025), or to periodically revisit the
question of whether to operate in perpetuity (from 20% to 26%). The proportion of foundations
operating in perpetuity has remained constant across the decade at just under 3 in 10.

Grantmaking
• Increasing payouts: Many more foundations are spending more than the required minimum
of 5% of their corpus (71%). A third have increased their payout rate in the past five years.
Foundations with more assets are more likely to increase their payout.

• A focus on grantees: Many foundations have taken initial steps to become more grantee
focused, such as streamlining their application and reporting structures (40%), providing
multiyear grants (20%), and providing support “beyond the check” (23%). Three-quarters of
respondents anticipate making more such changes in the future.

• A centering of community needs: Grantmakers’ general giving approach is increasingly

guided by their philanthropy’s mission area (72%) and by response to community needs (42%)
and the needs of grantseekers (43%). Conversely, fewer grantmakers are guided by historic
funding patterns (a drop of nine percentage points) and the interests of individual board
members (a ten percentage-point drop) than in previous reports. (Respondents could choose
more than one answer to this question.)

Trends 2025 | 6
 • Fewer general-operating grants: Despite these shifts to a greater grantee focus, there
has been a drop in foundations providing general operating support. Only 66% of respondents
provide this type of grant, down from 83% in 2015. That said, one-fifth of respondents do plan
to initiate or increase their general operating grants in the future.

• A drop in impact investing: Despite a rise in the 2020 figures (28%), philanthropies
undertaking impact investing have returned to 2015 levels (19%).

• Old and new ways of assessing impact: Examining individual grant outcomes continues
to be the most common way to assess impact. In addition, more respondents are soliciting
feedback from grantees and communities.

Reflection and Learning

• Widespread learning: Almost all foundations (90%) report having at least one practice
designed to help them learn about new ideas and approaches.

• A rise in active learning institutions: A third of organizations report that they have taken
steps to expand from grantmaking to become active learning institutions. This number has
increased by 14 percentage points since 2020.

• Increased time spent learning: A third of foundation boards identified learning about
grantmaking and focus areas/issues as one of the top three areas where they spend most of
their time and attention. This has tripled since 2015.

Family Dynamics
• Uneven youth engagement: Families say they prioritize the engagement of younger
generations at similar levels to a decade ago. However, the use of most strategies to encourage
next-generation participation has dropped precipitously since 2015. For example, bringing next-
generation members on site visits has dropped by half, and allocating discretionary or matching
funds for the younger generation has fallen by 19 percentage points.

• Some widening generational divides: For the most part, families are not reporting
divisions among generations. However, families do report experiencing some shifts in
generational dynamics that affect the philanthropy. For example, 35% report that younger
generations have less time for their family's philanthropy. One-quarter report that the
cohesiveness of the philanthropy has been eroded by younger generations moving away from
the primary geographical location. There is also an increase in the number of foundations
reporting generational conflicts over wealth (this has doubled to 12%), social/political/religious
views (doubled to 16%), and racial equity (which has almost tripled, to 11%).

Trends 2025 | 7
 • Barriers to family participation: Reports of dysfunctional family dynamics impeding
participation have doubled since 2020 (now 14% of respondents). There is also a large increase
in those reporting other commitments getting in the way of participation (up to 28% from 17%).

Governance, Staff, and Operations

• Who can serve: Who is eligible to serve as a board member has remained largely consistent
throughout the decade.

• An increase in independent board members: Of family foundations that allow

independent persons to be eligible for board service 80% have at least one. About one-fifth of
respondents anticipate adding more independent board members in the future. Foundations
with larger asset sizes are more likely to have multiple independent members.

• Spousal participation: Half of boards allow spouses of family members to serve, a number
that has remained consistent since 2020.

• Increased board diversity: Boards are more racially diverse than when we first asked this
question in 2020. The number of boards reporting Hispanic/Latino/Latina/Latinx representation
has increased by four percentage points. Black/African American representation has increased
by five percentage points. However, Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander board member
representation has decreased by three percentage points. The number of boards that report at
least one member who identifies as LGBTQ has also nearly doubled, to 19%.

Looking Ahead
• Additional assets expected: More than a quarter of respondents anticipate receiving
additional assets in the next four years.

• A modest increase in new staff members: However, only 8% of respondents anticipate

adding staff members in this same period.

• Some increased payout: A full fifth of respondents anticipate increasing their foundation's
payout rates.

• Expectations of increased impact investing: One-tenth of respondents anticipate

instituting impact/mission investing.

Trends 2025 | 8
Trends
Across
the Decade
2015 to 2025
Foundation
Identity
The profile of family foundations has remained fairly constant across
the decade. The foundations responding to this year’s survey differ
slightly from previous respondents in that they have greater assets and
are more likely to focus on an issue area or a local geography. Issues
such as the environment, sustainability, climate, and human and civil
rights have risen as priorities, and more foundations are considering
their lifespan than ever before.

Age and Asset Size

Of the foundations surveyed for the Trends 20252 report, there is an increase in the number
established before 1950 and those established in 2010 or later as compared to previous reports.
(See Appendix Table 1.)

FIGURE 1. Year foundation was created

2015 2020 2025

10% 13%
28%

59% 58%
44%

16% 16% 11%

12% 9% 8%
3% 4% 8%

Before 1950 1950 to 1969 1970 to 1989 1990 to 2009 2010 or later

2
For the purposes of this report, all data labeled “2015” refers to data presented in NCFP’s 2015 Trends study (data collected in 2014) and
“2020” refers to data presented in the 2020 Trends study (data collected in 2019). Data presented here as “2025” were collected in 2024.

Trends 2025 | 10
There has been a significant increase in foundation asset sizes. In 2025, 47% of respondents had
assets of $10 million or more, compared to 26% in 2020 and 30% in 2015. (See Appendix Table 2.)

FIGURE 2. Foundation’s approximate total assets

2015 2020 2025

3% 2% 4%
7% 12%
19% 5%
20%
31%

55% 57%
43%

15% 17% 10%

Less than $1MM $1MM to $9.9MM $10MM to $49.9MM

$50MM to $199.9MM $200MM or more

The change in age and assets may reflect a shift in the sampling strategy, particularly regarding the
increase in foundations created before 1950. (See Methodology, page 54, for more information.) In
addition, since the Trends study began, we have seen significant growth in the US stock market and
may have begun to see effects of the great wealth transfer.3, 4 These events may explain the growth
in asset sizes during the past decade, particularly regarding foundations with assets between $10
million and $500 million.

Reasons for Establishing a Foundation

This year, we asked participants to share their family’s primary giving vehicle. The overwhelming
majority of participants were those who used a foundation as their primary vehicle, with very few
responses coming from those who used other vehicles. Therefore, the data in this report reflects
only the responses from those whose primary giving vehicle is a foundation. We also asked founders
why they chose family foundations as their primary vehicle for collective giving. The most common
responses were that they wished to “create a vehicle for long-term family philanthropy legacy” (55%),
because they were “advised by a lawyer/estate planner” (39%), and because they sought to “create a
vehicle to engage the next generation in philanthropy” (32%). (See Appendix Table 3.)

3
Smith, T.J. “The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, With Familiar (Rich) Winners,” New York Times, May 14, 2023,
updated May 23, 2023.
4
Cerulli Associates. The Cerulli Report – U.S. High-Net Worth and Ultra-High-Net-Worth Markets, 2021.

Trends 2025 | 11
Foundation Focus
In 2025, a far greater proportion of foundations are pursuing an issue-driven giving strategy than
in previous years. Seventy-four percent of foundations responded that the primary focus of their
giving is an issue area, compared to 54% in both 2015 and 2020. These foundations also provided
information about the types of issue(s) they support. While the percentage of family foundations
indicating a geographic focus held steady (64%), the percentage focusing on race, ethnicity, or
culture has tripled (12% compared to 4%). Eleven percent of family foundations focus on faith-based
giving—a new category added in Trends 2025. (See Appendix Table 4).

FIGURE 3. Foundation areas of focus in 2025 Foundations selected all that applied

One or more issues Geographic

12% Racial/ethnic/cultural

74% 64%
11% Faith-based

Reasons for Their Focus

Sixty-four percent of foundations report that the founding donors' intent heavily influences the focus
of the family foundation. Other factors include the family’s current connection to community or issue
(48%) and a desire to direct resources for the greatest impact (44%). These findings are similar to
those in the Trends 2020 report, with one exception: Fewer foundations indicated that the family’s
current connection to community or issue was the reason for their focus (48% in 2025 compared to
61% in 2020). (See Appendix Table 5.)

Geographic Focus
Most family foundations that focus on a specific geography do so at a local level (66%). The
responses across all types of geography-based giving are similar to those in the Trends 2015
survey, with the exception of a national focus, which has decreased (10% compared to 21% in 2015).
Compared to the data in Trends 2020, there are fewer foundations with a statewide focus. (See
Appendix Table 6).

Trends 2025 | 12
FIGURE 4. Type of geographic focus Foundations selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

9%
13% 9%
21% 12%
10%
20% 52% 17%
29% 27%
38%

64% 66%
41%

Local Regional Statewide National International

Issue Focus
Just as in past Trends reports, education, college access, and literacy are the most common issue
focus areas. However, the number of foundations focusing on human rights, civil liberties, and
civil rights increased dramatically (24% in 2025 compared to 10% in 2020), as did the number of
foundations focusing on environment, sustainability, and climate (30% in 2025 compared to 18%
in 2020). Far fewer foundations focus on poverty, hunger, and homelessness, or social and family
services, which were the second and third most common issue areas in 2020. (See Appendix Table 7).

TABLE 1. Issue areas of focus* Participants selected all that applied

2020 2025

Education, college access, literacy 38% 40%

Environment, sustainability, climate 18% 30%

Human rights, civil liberties, civil rights 10% 24%

Healthcare, health, wellness, nutrition 18% 21%

Poverty, hunger, homelessness 27% 14%

Economic opportunity/inclusion, jobs, workforce, employment, 18% 12%

job training

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 13

 2020 2025

Youth empowerment, development, violence prevention 6% 11%

Community initiatives, services, and development 17% 10%

Social services, family services 25% 7%

Women’s issues, reproductive justice, health 11% 7%

Founding Donor Participation and Intent

Active participation of the founding donor in the family foundation has remained constant during the
past five years (56% in both 2020 and 2025). Regardless of the founding donor's engagement, 63%
of family foundations report that they are following the founder’s intent “very closely,” which is similar
to 2020. (See Appendix Table 8.)

Lifespan
While the proportion of foundations that have decided to operate in perpetuity has remained
constant across the decade (just 3 in 10), there is significant movement among other groups. More
family foundations have decided to limit the life of their philanthropy (13% in 2025 compared to 9%
in 2015 and 2020). One in four foundations is periodically revisiting whether to operate in perpetuity
or limit the foundation’s life, compared to one in five in 2015 and 2020. (See Appendix Table 9.) Of
those that revisit the foundation’s lifespan, just over half (55%) do so every two to five years. A third
of foundations have not made a decision about their lifespans, which is far fewer than in the past.

FIGURE 5. Decision to limit the life of the foundation

2015 9% 29% 20% 42%

2020 9% 28% 18% 45%

2025 13% 28% 26% 32%

Yes, we decided to limit the life of the foundation No, we decided to operate in perpetuity
No, but we revisit this question periodically No, we have not made a decision at this time

Trends 2025 | 14
Effectiveness
In 2020 and 2025 we asked family foundations to assess their effectiveness regarding operations
and how well their family works together. Overall, fewer foundations report that they agree that their
internal operations are effective (77% compared to 90% in 2020) and that their family works well
together (73% compared to 90%). (See Appendix Table 10.)

FIGURE 6. How effective donors feel they are with operations and family engagement

The internal operations of the family’s foundation are effective

2020 2025

10%
23%

90% 77%

Strongly or somewhat agree Disagree

The family members engaged in the foundation work well together

2020 2025

10%

27%

90% 73%

Strongly or somewhat agree Disagree

Trends 2025 | 15
Considerations and Questions
•F
 amily foundations' asset sizes have increased, but there has only
been a small increase in payout rates (see page 18), leaving a great
deal of inactive capital. What can be done to encourage the trend to
increase payout? What factors are holding families back?

•T
 ax, wealth, and legal advisors play a major role in helping families
determine the vehicle for their giving. How can the field educate
advisors on the full breadth of available vehicles and help families
choose a vehicle that aligns with their mission and goals?

•M
 ore foundations are debating the question of lifespan. What factors
should they consider? How can they learn from foundations that have
already determined their lifespan?

•F
 oundations perceive that their operations are less effective and that
their families are not working as well together. What is driving this
perception? What are the implications?

Trends 2025 | 16
Grantmaking
Current survey data shows that family foundations are mostly tailoring
their giving to align with their values and intended impacts. They are
also employing more practices that center the community and their
grantee partners, albeit inconsistently.

Size and Volume of Grants

More than a third (36%) of foundations we surveyed gave $1 million or more in the last year, up from
26% in 2020 and 23% in 2015.5 One in 20 family foundations gave more than $10 million compared to
one in 50 in 2015 and 2020. (See Appendix Table 11.)

However, there is also a more than threefold increase in the number of foundations who gave less
than $100,000 in 2025 compared to 2020. These foundations were more likely to have fewer total
assets (less than $10 million).

Though patterns in total giving shifted, the number of grants awarded across the decade has
remained constant. (See Appendix Table 12.)

FIGURE 7. Foundation’s total amount of giving in past fiscal year

2015 2020 2025

2% 2% 5%
3% 4% 5%
18% 20%
26%
11%
20%
15%

57%
49% 30%

18%
8% 5%

Less than $100K $100K to $499K $500K to $999K

$1MM to $4.9MM $5MM to $10MM Over $10MM

5
Data are not inflation-adjusted.

Trends 2025 | 17
FIGURE 8. Number of grants given in past fiscal year

2015 18% 31% 21% 20% 6% 3%

2020 20% 31% 28% 14% 6% 1%

2025 19% 31% 24% 19% 5% 2%

Less than 10 10 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 199 200 or more

Payout
More family foundations are spending beyond the required minimum of 5% of their corpus (71%)
compared to Trends 2020 (56%) and Trends 2015 (55%). (See Appendix Table 13.) In addition, this
year, we asked foundations if they increased, decreased, or kept their payout the same over the past
two years. More than a third (36%) report that they increased their payout, while half report that their
payout did not change. (See Appendix Table 14.)

FIGURE 9. Approximate payout rate in past two years

40% Percentage
of the corpus
35%
5%
30%

25% 5.1 to 6.0%

20% 6.1 to 8.0%

15% 8.1 to 10.0%

10% More than 10%

5% 1 00%, we are
0% a pass-through

2015 2020 2025

Trends 2025 | 18
 Foundations with more assets are more likely to report increasing their payout,
and those with the least resources (less than $1 million) are more likely to have
decreased their payout. The oldest foundations (established before 1950) are
more likely not to have changed their payout (82%) and are also less likely to be
giving above 5% of the corpus (54%).

FIGURE 10. Change in payout since 2019*

No change

51% 36% 13% Increase

Decrease

Grantmaking Guidelines
The most common criteria that guides giving is whether the grantee organization’s work reflects a
program area the foundation supports (62%), followed by the strategy/approach for creating change
on issues the foundation supports (31%). Fewer respondents selected these criteria than in the last
Trends report, at 73% and 50% respectively. (See Appendix Table 15.)

Of note, for at least one in five foundations, guidelines include whether the investment is related
to diversity, equity, and inclusion goals/strategies (21%) and social justice (25%), which is similar to
responses in 2020 (24% and 25%, respectively).

FIGURE 11. Criteria or guidelines used to guide foundation’s giving

Foundations selected all that applied

P
 rogram areas that reflect issues

2015 76% 37% 27% the foundation supports

S
 trategies/approaches for
creating change on issues the
foundation supports (including
2020 73% 50% 41% 24% 25%
theory of change or strategic plan)

T
 argets or measurable goals in
relation to issues the foundation
2025 62% 31% 19% 21% 25% supports

D
 iversity, equity, and inclusion
goals or strategies°

*This data was not collected in 2015 and 2020. S

 ocial justice°
°This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 19
What Influences Giving Decisions
Based on Trends 2025 data, foundations’ giving decisions became less donor-centric and more
centered in community. A far greater proportion of foundations (72%) report that their mission and
program areas influenced their giving strategy, compared to previous years (59% in 2020 and 57%
in 2015). The past decade also saw a gradual decline in the influence on giving of historic funding
patterns (a 9-point drop), the family’s values and wishes (a 6-point drop), and, most notably, the
founding donor’s values and wishes (an 18-point drop).

In addition, the interests of individual board members as a primary influence on giving decisions has
declined from 49% in 2015 to 39% today. Meanwhile, the needs of grantseekers as a primary influence
has nearly doubled from 23% in 2015 to 43% in 2025. This mirrors a similar jump in influence of
community needs/trends on giving (25% in 2015 to 42% in 2025). (See Appendix Table 16.)

TABLE 2. Factors that influence foundation’s general giving approach

Only includes data on those who responded that the factor influences their giving approach “a lot”

2015 2020 2025

Historic funding patterns 51% 52% 42%

Founding donors’ values and wishes 76% 67% 58%

Family’s values and wishes 63% 61% 57%

Interests of individual board members 49% 36% 39%

Philanthropy’s mission/program areas 57% 59% 72%

Needs of grantseekers 23% 26% 43%

Response to community needs/trends 25% 37% 42%

Fluctuation in the foundation’s assets 13% 11% 15%

Public spending priorities 2% 7% 2%

Diversity, equity, and inclusion considerations* 15% 15%

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 20

Grantee Engagement
In nearly all grantmaking practices we asked about, respondents to the Trends 2025 survey have
fewer requirements of grantees compared to those in 2020 and 2015. This further suggests that
donors are shifting toward practices that center the needs of their community partners over their
own preferences. (See Appendix Table 17.)

TABLE 3. Grantee requirements Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Report on outcomes 57% 59% 45%

Submit a financial report 45% 46% 39%

Submit a descriptive report of activities undertaken 52% 60% 42%

with grant money

Set and measure program goals/targets 34% 32% 21%

Sign a formal grant agreement with the foundation 35% 50% 38%

Submit a proposal or application for grants via an 44% 30%

online portal*

Submit a printed proposal or application for grants* 40% 25%

Report on diversity, equity, and inclusion goals or 7% 5%

outcomes*

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 21

Types of Giving
Donors are not centering grantee needs in all aspects of their Larger and older
grantmaking, however. Respondents to our 2025 survey gave fewer family foundations
general operating support, multiyear, and capacity-building grants,
are more likely to
a decline that has persisted since 2015. During this past decade,
provide general
foundations did increase support for individual leaders and social
entrepreneurs.
operating support,
multiyear, and
Family foundations supported or promoted peer-to-peer nonprofit capacity-building
learning and co-funding projects with other funders at similar grants.
rates during the past five years. (See Appendix Table 18.) In 2025
we added four additional options: “Seek out or prioritize grantees
whose leaders have lived experience in the issues the philanthropy
supports” (25%), “accept grant applications on a rolling basis”
(22%), “use set giving cycles” (25%), and “use participatory
grantmaking” (8%).

TABLE 4. Types of giving Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Provide general operating support grants 83% 69% 66%

Provide multiyear grants 68% 61% 62%

Provide capacity-building grants or assistance 63% 47% 53%

Provide support for individual leaders and social 8% 14% 16%

entrepreneurs

Operate programs directly 8% 17% 6%

Support or promote peer-to-peer nonprofit learning* 25% 22%

Co-fund projects with other funders* 34% 34%

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 22

Principles-Based Grantmaking
We were curious to see the ways donors are putting principles of effective family philanthropy—
accountability, equity, reflection and learning, and relationships—into practice. To that end, in this
year’s survey we included questions drawn from those posed by the Trust-Based Philanthropy
Project that align with NCFP’s principles.

Since 2020, foundations report having streamlined their application process and/or reporting
(40%), taking steps to “do the homework” on prospective grantees in pre-proposal stages (32%),
and introducing and/or increasing the number of unrestricted grants (29%). About one in four
foundations has instituted more support “beyond the check” (23%), moved to multiyear grants (20%),
switched from narrative to verbal reporting (18%), and improved its systems and structures to identify
underfunded and/or overlooked grantee partners (17%).

Of note, almost three-quarters of family foundations report that they are considering some of these
practices in the future (73%). Only 18 percent of respondents report that they did not take any of the
actions assessed, suggesting that a majority of foundations are seeking to make grants in principle-
based ways. (See Appendix Table 19.)

However, juxtaposed with the data regarding the types of giving above, the adoption of such
practices appears inconsistent.

FIGURE 12. Principle-based grantmaking practices adopted and sustained since 2020
Foundations selected all that applied

18% We have not taken any of these actions

18% Switched from narrative to verbal reporting

17% Improved our systems and structures to identify
20% underfunded and/or overlooked grantee partners

23% Moved to multiyear grants

Instituted more support “beyond the check”

29%
Introduced and/or increased the number of
32% unrestricted grants

T
 ook steps to “do the homework” on prospective
40% grantees in the pre-proposal stages

S
 treamlined our application and/or reporting

Are you considering any of these

73%
practices in the future? (yes)

Trends 2025 | 23
Impact Investing
One in four foundations is exploring or using mission-related or impact investing in 2025. Nineteen
percent of foundations report that they are already making impact investments, the same percentage
as in 2015, and a slightly lower percentage than in 2020 (28%).

Of those that have a target percentage for their mission-related investments and impact, 66% have
achieved their target and 34% are working toward the target. (See Appendix Table 20).

FIGURE 13. Foundations that engage in any type of impact investing

2015 2020 2025

19% 28% 19%

FIGURE 14. Does your philanthropy have a target percentage for MRI/impact investing?
If yes, has your philanthropy reached this target?*

2025 Has a target percentage

Reached
66%
the target

19%

Working toward
34%
the target

*This data is for 2025 only and was not collected in 2015 or 2020. Trends 2025 | 24
Assessing Their Impact
With a few exceptions, foundations are assessing their grantmaking Family foundations
in similar ways as respondents to the Trends 2020 survey. The most that report they are
common way foundations assess their grantmaking continues to
effective are more
be examining individual grant outcomes (38%); however, more
likely to spend their
foundations solicited feedback from their grantees and/or the
communities they serve (38%) compared to 2020 (27%).
time evaluating
the outcomes
In 2025, when asked about how they learn, nearly half (48%) of of grantmaking
family foundations reported that they evaluate the outcomes strategies.
of their strategies. (See Appendix Table 25.) Still, compared to
respondents of the 2020 survey, fewer strive to assess their impact
on the issues or program areas they prioritize or to assess their
total impact. A minority of family foundations do not assess the
impact of their giving (16%), while 14% are exploring how to do so.
(See Appendix Table 21.)

Additional Giving Methods

Individual family members are giving in ways that go beyond the collective giving of their family
foundation. (See Appendix Table 22.) The most common avenue for individual giving is direct
donations to nonprofit organizations (57%). In addition, 34% use at least one DAF, and 19% also use a
family office structure.

In line with prior Trends reports, the use of DAFs affiliated with financial institutions has stayed
consistent over time. However, we are seeing declines in the use of certain vehicles. Fewer family
members are giving through DAFs at community foundations (17% compared to 37% in 2020)
or DAFs at other institutions or organizations (4% compared to 13% in 2020). Family business
contributions also declined (12%) since 2020 and 2015 (19% in both years). The use of other private
operating foundations continues to slow down, while the use of giving circles and contributions to
social venture funds returned to rates similar to those in 2015.

Trends 2025 | 25
Considerations and Questions
•S
 ome of the findings suggest that family foundations are becoming
more community-centered rather than donor-centered. What might
continue to support this shift?

•A
 t the same time, we see a decline in the types of grants that
often support the infrastructure and sustainability of nonprofit
organizations, such as general operating and multiyear grants. What
barriers do families face in adopting these practices more broadly?

•F
 oundations’ missions continue to provide overall guidance for their
grantmaking at the same time that they are increasingly prioritizing
community and grantee needs. What influence might grantees and
community members have in shaping the missions of foundations
going forward?

•G
 iven that equity-focused practices are reported to be on the
rise, why aren’t we seeing an increase in DEI and social justice-
centered giving?

•W
 hat do the shifts away from assessing impact on an issue or
program level mean?

Trends 2025 | 26
Reflection
& Learning
A vast majority of family foundations report that they are engaged in
activities that help them reflect and learn. In fact, 90% of foundations
take at least one action to learn more about new ideas and approaches
related to their grantmaking, issues in the community, and other topics.

A third of foundation boards identified learning about grantmaking and focus areas/issues as one
of the top three areas where they spend most of their time and attention. (See Appendix Table
43.) Common actions include reading materials on topics of interest (55%), conducting site visits/
community visits (53%), and listening to presentations by staff and/or board members (50%). These
rates are similar to 2020, but far lower than 2015. Fewer board members sit on nonprofit boards
(36% in 2025 compared to 42% in 2020), and boards hear fewer presentations from outside experts
(30% in 2025, 43% in 2020). (See Appendix Table 23.)

FIGURE 15. How boards learn about new ideas and approaches related to grantmaking,
issues in the community, etc. Foundations selected all that applied

90% Reading materials on these

topics
80%
Site visits/community tours
70%
Presentations to the board by
60% staff and/or board members

Participation in external
50%
learning opportunities
40% Participation on nonprofit
boards
30%
Participation in funder networks
20%
Presentations to the board by
10% outside experts

2015 2020 2025

Trends 2025 | 27
There is a 14-point increase in the number of foundations Family foundations that
that say they have taken steps to expand from report being effective in
grantmaking to become an active learning institution
their work are also more
(33% compared to 19% in 2020). Twenty-three percent
likely to have a commitment
are exploring the idea of becoming an active learning
institution. A similar proportion of family foundations in
to learning about their
2020 and 2025—four out of ten—report that they have work. In particular, they are
not taken any steps to expand from grantmaking to an more likely to solicit direct
active learning institution. (See Appendix Table 24.) feedback from grantees and
the communities they serve,
Those who identified themselves as having taken
take steps to assess the
steps to becoming a learning organization engaged
in activities such as attending philanthropic-focused impact of their work, and
conferences (81%), gathering feedback from grantees evaluate the outcomes of
about their experiences (77%), conducting site visits grantmaking strategies.
(71%), and integrating grantee and community feedback
into operations and grantmaking (62%). (See Appendix
Table 25.)

FIGURE 16. Activities foundation engages in to become an active learning institution*

Respondents who reported having taken steps to become learning institutions could select all
that applied

2025
81% 71% 77%
Attending philanthropy- Conducting Gathering feedback
focused conferences group site visits from grantees about
their experiences

62% 61% 40%

Integrating grantee and Regularly bringing in outside Providing specialized training
community feedback into speakers to board meetings for board and staff members
operations and grantmaking (at least once a year) (at least once a year)

*This data was not collected in 2015 or 2020. Trends 2025 | 28

Considerations and Questions
•W
 e know that effective organizations of all types benefit from a
strong learning culture, but we are seeing declines in the amount of
time boards spend engaged in learning. What is driving this? What are
the barriers?

•W
 hat does it mean to become a learning institution? What are the
commitments a family might embrace to promote learning?

•H
 ow does undertaking fewer learning activities affect how
foundations engage and prepare their next generations of leaders?

•W
 hat types of learning activities have emerged with new technologies
that we are failing to make use of as a field?

Trends 2025 | 29
Family
Dynamics
A majority of family foundations (86%) are encouraging their next
generations of family members to participate in the family philanthropy.
However, they report using fewer tactics to engage younger family
members than they have in the past. In many cases, time constraints,
changing practices brought on by COVID, changing socio-political and
economic climates, and other barriers have disrupted the continuity of
next-generation participation.

Leadership Development and Succession Planning

The most common ways families engage younger generations Family foundations
are by inviting them to participate in decision-making or that report they are
governance (43%) and in discussions and decisions about
effective in their work
board grants (40%). The use of these tactics has remained
are more likely to
steady since 2020. However, when compared to 2020, fewer
foundations in 2025 encourage individual giving back to spend time engaging
society as an explicit family value (40% compared to 51%). the next generation.

The use of other tactics to engage the next generation has declined since 2015. The percentage of
foundations that provide discretionary or matching funds for grantmaking has decreased from 50%
in 2015 to 31% in 2025. Fewer foundations are taking next-generation family members on site visits
(28% in 2025 compared to 56% in 2015). And this year, only 21% organized formal discussions on the
foundation’s core values with younger family members, compared to 62% in 2015.

The use of a junior board to engage younger family members has remained constant at 11%. (See
Appendix Table 26.)

Trends 2025 | 30
Generational Dynamics that Affect the Family Foundation
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of respondents to the 2025 survey say their foundations are not affected
by any of the family dynamics listed. Those who indicated being affected by family dynamics report
patterns similar to those in 2020. For example, they cite challenges such as the younger generation’s
lack of time to devote to philanthropy (35%) and the older generation’s reluctance to share decision-
making power (10%) at similar rates as 2020.

However, there are some dramatic generational shifts that affect how families are giving collectively
today, which may have implications for the future of foundation giving. For example, nearly triple
the percentage of foundations in 2025 (11%) compared to 2020 (4%) report that older and younger
generations have different values and understanding of racial equity. Twice as many foundations
report that conflicting political/social/religious views (16% in 2025 compared to 8% in 2020) and
conflicting views about wealth between generations increasingly affect the family foundation (12% in
2025 and 6% in 2020).

There is a 9-point increase in foundations reporting that younger generation family members have
moved away from the primary geographic location of the foundation’s funding (from 15% in 2020
to 24% in 2025). (See Appendix Table 27.) Almost a third (28%) of family foundations that are
geographically focused report that the dynamic of the younger generation moving away affects the
family foundation, compared to those who are not geographically focused (18%).

TABLE 5. Generational dynamics that affect the family philanthropy*

Participants selected all that applied

2020 2025

Older and younger generations are interested in different issues 28% 21%

Older and younger generations have different values 13% 10%

Younger generation does not have time to be actively involved 33% 35%

Younger generation has moved away from the primary geographic 15% 24%
location of the foundation’s funding

Conflicting political/social/religious views between generations 8% 16%

Conflicting views about wealth between generations 6% 12%

Older generation is reluctant to share decision-making power with 12% 10%

younger generation

*Only partial data was collected for this question in 2015.

See Appendix Table 27 for more information. Trends 2025 | 31
 2020 2025

Generations have different opinions about how to achieve results and 17% 12%
impact with funds

Younger generation does not value the legacy of the donor(s) 4% 4%

Older generation does not perceive younger generation’s input as 3% 2%

valuable/important

Generations have different opinions about what types of investments 10% 8%

the foundation should hold

Generations have different opinions about how transparent the 8% 6%

foundation should be regarding its giving/grants

Older and younger generations have different values and 4% 11%

understanding of racial equity

Factors That Sustain and Impede Participation

in a Family Foundation
We asked respondents to identify factors that encourage and Foundations created
deter active involvement in the foundation. Similar to 2020, in before 1989 are
2025 respondents say that their participation is most sustained
more likely to report
by the impact of their giving (56%) and the commitment to
stronger family
the donors’ and/or family’s philanthropy legacy (55%). Fewer
respondents are sustained by stronger family relationships
relationships as a
(down by 12 points since 2020) or the opportunity to engage sustaining factor.
younger generations over time (a nine-point drop since 2020). Foundations created
(See Appendix Table 28.) before 2009 are
more likely to report
The most common factors that impede participation “a lot”
include family members’ phase of life/other commitments,
phase of life as an
which nearly doubled from 16% in 2020 to 28% in 2025, impediment to family
geographic dispersion of family members (17%), and participation.
dysfunctional family dynamics, which doubled from 7% in
2020 to 14% in 2025. (See Appendix Table 29.)

Trends 2025 | 32
Considerations and Questions
•D
 oes the fact that family foundations are not engaging the next
generation at the same rates as in the past reflect a shift in the role
of family in family philanthropy? What other factors might it reflect?

•L
 ack of time is one of the top factors that impedes family
participation. How can families adjust their practices to overcome
this barrier?

•H
 ow can families address and work through conflicting viewpoints
that impede impact?

•F
 amilies also indicate geographic dispersement as a factor that
discourages engagement and impact. How might families mitigate
this trend?

Trends 2025 | 33
Governance,
Staff &
Operations
Family foundation boards are more diverse than ever and include
a greater number of third- and fourth-generation family members.
Boards prioritize planning and strategy development, learning about
grantmaking and issue areas, and assessing the foundation’s work. Day-
to-day operations tend to be managed by unpaid family members or
paid nonfamily members.

Board Composition
Family foundation boards often comprise a mix of family members and independent members—
individuals not related to the founding donor(s) by blood, marriage, or familial relation. Board
eligibility has remained constant across the three Trends surveys. In 2025, more than two-thirds of
foundations allow children/grandchildren of family members to serve on the board, and, in nearly
half of foundations, spouses of family members are eligible. About four in 10 allow independent
board members to serve on the board, a similar rate to 2020 (43%). (See Appendix Table 30.)

FIGURE 17. Persons eligible to serve as a board member

Children/grandchildren of family members

2020 65% 51% 26% 43%
Spouses of family members
Both spouses and domestic partners of
family members
2025 68% 49% 22% 39%
Independent members

Trends 2025 | 34
Since Trends 2020, the number of family board Foundations with the largest asset
members has increased: More than a quarter sizes ($200 million and up) are more
of boards have six or more family members likely to have independent board
now, compared to just one in five in 2020. A
members than those with lower asset
majority (80%) of family foundations that allow
sizes. The greater the asset size, the
independent persons to be eligible for board
service have at least one independent board more independent board members
member. (See Appendix Table 31 and 32.) participate on the board.

FIGURE 18. Number of family board members*

2020 2025
19% 27%
6 or more

3 to 5
46%
49%
1 to 2

0 33%
23%
2% 1%

FIGURE 19. Number of independent board members (of those that allow independent
board members)*

2020 2025
10% 7%

6 or more 26% 37%

3 to 5
30%
1 to 2 37%

0 35%
20%

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 35

Board Compensation
Fewer trustees received fees or reimbursements for participation in the family foundation in 2025
than 2020. In fact, only half of family foundations in 2025 report they are paying their trustees
fees and/or reimbursements compared to 65% in 2020. In 2020 and 2025, approximately one-
third of foundations offered trustees reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. In the current
survey, we also asked who received taxable compensation for board participation. Approximately
one in ten board chairs, family board members, and independent board members received taxable
compensation. (See Appendix Tables 33 and 34.)

Board Composition Across Generations

The percentage of boards that include the founding donor(s) and first-generation members
has declined during the past 10 years. Only half of 2025 survey respondents report having first-
generation/founding donor(s) on their boards, compared to 61% in 2020 and 73% in 2015. The
number of foundations with second-generation board members declined from 2015 to 2020 but
rose slightly in 2025. There are more significant increases in third- and fourth-generation board
participation today compared to a decade ago. (See Appendix Table 35.)

FIGURE 20. Board members by family generation

2015* 2020 2025

7% 10% 17%
23%
32%
34%

67%
59%
62%

73% 61% 50%

1st generation/founding donor(s) 2nd generation

3rd generation 4th generation and beyond*

*In 2015 data was not collected for 5th and 6th generations. Trends 2025 | 36
Those aged 55 to 74 are the generation most commonly represented on boards today: 96% of boards
have at least one member in this age bracket. Those in the 75 or older age bracket and the 39 to 54
age bracket are the next most commonly represented on family foundation boards (85% for both).
Representation from board members in the 39 to 54, 22 to 38, and 22 and younger age brackets has
increased during the past five years. (See Appendix Table 36.)

Gender and Racial Composition of Boards

The racial makeup of family foundation boards today reflects some demographic shifts. Though the
proportion of boards that report having at least one member who is a person of color has remained
constant, there is a greater overall number of Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino/Latina/Latinx,
and multiracial or multiethnic board members than in 2020. The number of Asian/Asian American/
Pacific Islander board members has declined slightly. (See Appendix Table 37.)

The proportion of board members who identify as LGBTQ has almost doubled since 2020. In 2025,
there is a greater proportion of cisgender-female board members (51%) than cisgender-males, with
3% reporting another gender. This is somewhat similar to 2020, though the response categories were
different, as the survey offered only male and female options. (See Appendix Tables 38 and 39.)

FIGURE 21. Composition of board: Gender*

Male Cisgender
55%° male
47%°

2020 2025

Female Cisgender
45%° female
51%°

Other gender 3%˜

(includes gender
nonconforming,
transgender male,
transgender female,
other gender)

*This data was not collected in 2015.

°In 2020 the options given were “Male” and “Female.”
˜This data was not collected in 2020.
Trends 2025 | 37
FIGURE 22. Composition of board: Race*

2020 2025

Any person of color 35% 35%

Any member
who identifies as:
Asian/Asian American/
2%
Pacific Islander
1% 11%
Black/African American 3% 1%
5%
Hispanic/Latino/Latina/Latinx 14%
10%
Native American/American
Indian/Alaska Native/Native
Hawaiian 12% 17%

Multiracial or multiethnic
13% 10%
Other

FIGURE 23. Composition of board: LGBTQ

2020 2025

Any member who

11% 19%
identifies as LGBTQ

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 38

Sourcing New Board Members
For this report, we wanted to understand how family foundations recruit independent board
members. Most often, they use the networks of existing board members (63%) and identify local
leaders who either possess expertise in a particular issue (33%) or who have lived experience aligned
with the foundation’s issue areas (23%). (See Appendix Table 40.)

Discretionary Grants
The number of foundations that allow board members to make discretionary grants declined from
86% in 2015 to 68% in 2025. Of those that do allow discretionary grants, almost half allow them to be
given in support of any issue, 34% must meet the overall mission of the foundation, and 35% must go
through a standard board approval process. (See Appendix Table 41.)

This year, we were also curious to know what percentage of a foundation’s annual grantmaking
budget is discretionary. Forty-one percent of foundations allot less than 5% of their budget to
discretionary funds, and 24% allot 5 to 10 percent. (See Appendix Table 42.)

How Boards Spend Their Time

Respondents to the 2025 survey report that the top three areas Family foundations
where board members spend their time are planning that report they are
and strategy development (36%), learning about grantmaking
effective in their work
and issue areas (34%), and assessing the foundation’s work
are more likely to spend
(33%). There was a notable decline in one area: time spent
on investment management, which fell from 45% in 2015 to
time on the governance
28% in 2025. (See Appendix Table 43.) of their foundation.

TABLE 6. Areas in which the board spends the most of its time and attention
Participants selected their top three

2015 2020 2025

Planning and strategy development 21% 42% 36%

Learning about grantmaking and focus areas/issues 10% 24% 34%

Evaluation and reflection on the foundation's work 31% 38% 33%

Investment management 45% 48% 28%

Trends 2025 | 39
 2015 2020 2025

Next-generation engagement 22% 17% 26%

Site visits/community tours 16% 31% 26%

Governance of the foundation 17% 30% 25%

External/community relations 4% 14% 8%

Staff management/operations 4% 14% 7%

Learning about governance and operations 1% 13% 5%

DEI training/development* 4% 5%

Discussions of Wealth
Accountability is one of the four core principles of NCFP’s Guide for Effective Family Philanthropy;
because of this we were curious to know if families discussed the source of their wealth and if those
discussions could inform their strategy. Nearly half (48%) have either discussed or are considering
discussing the topic. (See Appendix Table 44.)

Committees
Fifty-seven percent of 2025 survey respondents report that their boards use one or more formal
committee or advisory board to help guide their philanthropy. Of those that do use them, the
most common are related to fiscal management such as investments (68%) and finance and/or
audits (50%). Despite being one of the most common types of committees, the use of investment
committees has gradually declined since Trends 2015. In contrast, there is a twofold increase in the
use of governance committees or advisory groups (37% in 2025, 18% in 2015). In 2025, there was a
significant drop in the use of committees for management/personnel. (See Appendix Table 45.)

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 40

FIGURE 24. Types of board committees or advisory groups used
Data from those who use any

On the decline

2015 2020 2025

7% 10%
24%
25% 9% 3%
7%
30% 10%
24% 9%
71% 10%
34% 50%

83% 79% 68%

Investments Finance and/or audits Next generation Management/personnel

Community/program advisory Diversity, equity, and inclusion*

On the increase

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0%

2015 2020 2025

Program/grantmaking Governance

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 41

Staffing
A majority of family foundations (80%) report having staff Older foundations with
members. However, this is a decrease from 2020 (85%). Of higher assets are more
foundations with staff members, fewer have both family and likely to use independent
nonfamily staff members in 2025 (12%) than in 2020 (45%).
staff members.
(See Appendix Table 46.)

FIGURE 25. Overview of staff*

No staff No staff
15% 20%

2020 2025

Have staff Have staff

85% 80%

Family staff only, 15%

Family staff only, 34%
Nonfamily staff only
25%

Nonfamily staff only

Both family & nonfamily 34%
45%
Both family & nonfamily, 12%

Of the 46% of foundations with family staff members in 2025, most have one staff member (33%), an
increase from 2020 (20%). The number of foundations with two family staff members dropped from
21% in 2020 to 6% in 2025, and the number with three or more has dropped from 18% to 7%.

Forty-six percent of foundations surveyed in 2025 have nonfamily staff members, a decrease from
70% in 2020. Twenty percent have just one nonfamily staff member, while 13% have two and 20%
have three or more—slightly fewer than in 2020. (See Appendix Table 47.)

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 42

FIGURE 26. Number of family members who are foundation staff members*

One
20% One
Two Two
Zero 33%
Zero 21% 6%
54%
41%
Three or
2020 more, 18% 2025 7%
Three or more

FIGURE 27. Number of nonfamily members who are foundation staff members*

One One
Two
26% 20% Two
15% Zero 13%
Zero 47%
Three or
31% more, 29% Three or
2020 2025 more, 20%

Day-to-Day Operations
Eighty-four percent of family foundations surveyed in 2025 indicated that only one category of staff
member (family or nonfamily) is responsible for day-to-day operations, and it is most likely to be a
paid nonfamily member or an unpaid family member. Across the decade, we see a decline in unpaid
family, unpaid nonfamily members, and advisors/consultants/advisory firms as those responsible for
day-to-day operations. (See Appendix Table 48.)

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 43

FIGURE 28. Who is responsible for day-to-day operations
Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

26%
4%
25% 14%
7%
24% 10%
43% 23% 1%
46%
36%
69%
46% 40%

Unpaid family member Paid nonfamily member Paid family member

Unpaid nonfamily member Advisors/consultants/advisory firm

Staff Growth
Fewer foundations added program-focused, administrative/operational, or finance/accounting staff
members in the past five years. Instead, almost twice as many family foundations added consultants
or outsourcing support (23%) in 2025 than they did in 2020 (12%). (See Appendix Table 49.)

FIGURE 29. Staff members added in past five years

1%
E
 xecutive director/CEO

2015 6% 11% 14% 6% 16%

P
 rogram-focused staff

A
 dmin./operational staff

F
 inance/accounting staff
2020 12% 27% 24% 16% 12% 9%
Other
 staff

C
 onsultants or
outsourcing support
2025 14% 9% 9% 23%

D
 EI personnel*
4% 4% 1%

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 44

Communications
Overall, fewer foundations are communicating Older and larger foundations
with grantees and others about their work than in are more likely to communicate
2020. Specifically, fewer are sharing their priorities about their priorities and
and their giving process via their website or other
their giving process via their
channels (47% in 2025 versus 61% in 2020). We
website or other channels.
also see a gradual decline in family foundations
accepting unsolicited letters of inquiry and/or They are also more likely
proposals over the course of 10 years. In addition, to tell grant applicants why
fewer foundations are sharing with grant applicants their proposal was declined
the reasons they declined their proposal (42% in and to solicit feedback from
2025, compared to 55% in 2020). However, more grantees. Larger foundations
family foundations are soliciting feedback from their
are also more likely to accept
grantees (38% in 2025, compared to 29% in 2020).
unsolicited letters of inquiry
(See Appendix Table 50.)
and/or unsolicited proposals.

TABLE 7. How the foundation communicates

2015 2020 2025

About giving priorities via our website/other channel 31% 61% 47%

About giving processes (e.g., dates when proposals 32% 55% 44%
are due or when decisions will be made, etc.) via our
website or other channel

We tell grant applicants the reasons that their 50% 55% 42%
proposal was declined

We solicit feedback from our grantees 36% 29% 38%

We accept unsolicited letters of inquiry and/or 47% 32% 27%

unsolicited proposals

We communicate explicitly about our diversity, equity, 9% 11%

and inclusion goals*

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 45

Considerations and Questions
•H
 ow are families assessing the expertise and voices needed to inform
the foundation’s strategies?

•W
 hy has the time board members spend on investments and
investment committees declined?

•W
 hat are the greatest pain points when staffing family foundations?
What factors do families weigh when selecting staff members? What
expertise and lived experience do they consider when hiring?

•O
 n average, foundation boards have grown in size. What new voices
have been added to decision-making? What impact has this had on
learning cultures, governance practices, or grant strategies?

•W
 hy are foundations communicating less today than they did five
years ago?

Trends 2025 | 46
Looking
Ahead
Family foundations are planning for the future by including younger
family members as leaders. Few anticipate major changes in the size of
their assets, and most do not expect to change their giving practices.

Anticipated Board and Staff Changes

More than a third of family foundations plan to increase the number of younger family members on
their board and give younger generations more say in the foundation’s operations and giving. These
numbers are similar to data from the past two Trends surveys. (See Appendix Table 51.)

FIGURE 30. Changes regarding the younger generation’s involvement in the philanthropy
that the foundation is anticipating or considering in the next four years

2015 2020 2025

Add/increase the number

of younger family 42% 37% 37%
members on the board

Giving younger
generations more say 28% 34%
in the foundation’s
operations and giving*

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 47

 Foundations created in 2009 and earlier are more likely to add younger family
members to the board. Those created in 1989 or before are more likely to see
a change in board leadership. Foundations created in and after 1970 are more
interested in adding independent board members.

FIGURE 31. Changes regarding the board and staff that the foundation is anticipating or
considering in the next four years

2015 2020 2025

Change in board
leadership 24% 25% 22%

Change in senior staff

leadership 10% 10% 10%

Add/increase the
number of independent
members on the board 13% 21% 20%

Create an
advisory committee
of community members 4% 16% 10%
or program experts

Hire staff
for the first time 10% 8% 7%

Expand the existing

number of staff members 12% 27% 8%
Trends 2025 | 48
FIGURE 32. Changes regarding board diversity that the foundation is anticipating or
considering in the next four years

2015 2020 2025

Add/increase the
racial/ethnic diversity 4% 21% 8%
of the board

Add/increase other forms

of diversity of the board 13% 11%
(e.g., gender, age, income level)*

Increase considerations
of the role of racial equity 9%
in our operations°

*This data was not collected in 2015.

°This data was not collected in 2015 or 2020. Trends 2025 | 49
Changes to Assets
Overall, foundations’ predictions regarding their assets in Family foundations with
the coming five years look more similar to their estimates less than $10 million in
in 2015 than in 2020. However, fewer foundations (27%)
total assets are more
anticipate receiving additional assets in the next five years
likely to expect to receive
than in 2020 (31%) and 2015 (51%). In addition, fewer
foundations anticipate reducing their assets (5%) than in additional assets in the
2020 (9%). (See Appendix Table 52.) next four years, as are
foundations established in
While 29% of respondents to the 2020 survey anticipated
or after 2010. Foundations
increasing their payout, in 2025, foundations’ expectations
with smaller asset sizes are
of increasing payout (20%) returned to 2015 levels (19%). As
a point of comparison, 36% of respondents in 2025 report
more likely to change their
that they recently increased their payout. (See page 19.) investment strategy. Those
established between 1950
Compared to 2020, fewer family foundations expect to and 2009 are more likely
expand or initiate mission or impact investing, align their
to decrease their payout.
investment assets with their social/family values, or change
their investment strategy.

FIGURE 33. Changes to assets the foundation is anticipating or considering in the next
four years

4%

2015 51% 19% 6% 12% 9% 22% 12%

2%

2020 31% 9% 29% 29% 20% 18% 20%

5% 5%

2025 27% 20% 13% 10% 8% 13%

Receive additional assets Expand mission or impact investing

Reduce assets significantly Institute mission or impact investing

Increase payout rate A

 lign investment assets with social/family values

Decrease payout rate Change investment strategy

Trends 2025 | 50
Changes to Giving Practices
A quarter of family foundations expect to initiate or increase multiyear grants. One in five will
initiate or increase general operating/unrestricted grants. These rates are similar to those in prior
Trends reports.

The proportion of foundations intending to give fewer, larger grants has remained unchanged
since 2020 (18%) but has dropped since 2015 (29%). Fewer foundations expect to initiate/increase
capacity-building support compared to 2020 (12% in 2025 compared to 27% in 2020.) (See Appendix
Table 53.)

FIGURE 34. Changes to giving practices the foundation is anticipating or considering in

the next four years

2015 25% 20% 29% 15% 18% 22% 15% 22% 6%

2020 30% 17% 18% 27% 19% 17% 20% 13% 31% 9%

2025 24% 21% 18% 12% 13% 13% 12% 13% 8% 7%

5%

Initiate/increase multiyear grants Focus or narrow giving program

Initiate/increase general operating/ A

 dopt a new giving strategy
unrestricted grants Apply a racial equity perspective to giving*
Give fewer, larger grants Expand giving priorities
Initiate/increase capacity building support Initiate/increase public-policy activities
Initiate/expand support for emerging nonprofits Use of participatory grantmaking°

*This data was not collected in 2015.

°This data was not collected in 2015 or 2020. Trends 2025 | 51
Changes to Evaluation and Transparency
Fewer foundations report that they plan to initiate or expand opportunities for grantees to provide
feedback in 2025 (22%) than in 2020 (29%). Along the same lines, fewer foundations plan to initiate
changes to data collection on their outcomes or impacts, or to expand evaluation of grantees in 2025
(16%) compared to 2020 (26%) and 2015 (25%).

Far fewer foundations (16%) in 2025 plan to increase transparency by reporting about the
philanthropy in general or by sharing the demographics of the board, staff members, and/or grantees
(8% compared to 36% in 2020). (See Appendix Table 54.)

FIGURE 35. Changes to evaluation and transparency the foundation is anticipating or

considering in the next four years

2015 2020 2025

36%

18%
25% 8%
30%
15%
17%
26% 16%
25% 16%
22% 29% 22%

Initiate/expand opportunities for grantees to provide feedback or input

Initiate/expand data collection on the foundation’s outcomes or impacts

Increase transparency by expanding reporting about the foundation

Initiate/expand evaluation of grantees or clusters of grantees

Increase transparency by reporting on the demographics of your board, staff, and/or grantees*

*This data was not collected in 2015. Trends 2025 | 52

Considerations and Questions
•D
 espite more foundations saying they plan to include the next
generation of family members on their boards and in leadership roles,
they appear to be taking fewer actions to engage them. How might
that affect next-generation onboarding and engagement?

•T
 he asset sizes of family foundations have increased, and there
is a small increase in payout rates (see page 18), which means
there is still a great deal of inactive capital. What can be done to
encourage foundations to increase payout? What factors are holding
families back?

•W
 hy are fewer foundations interested in increasing transparency
about their work? What might incentivize foundations to be more
transparent?

Trends 2025 | 53
Methodology
In 2015, NCFP launched a study to establish a data set to track the
practices of family foundations (Trends 2015). The study built a
sampling methodology that used Candid’s family foundation database,
which is considered to be the most comprehensive national database of
foundations. NCFP replicated the study in 2019 (Trends 2020) using a
similar sampling strategy.

NCFP commissioned a third study in 2024 representative database and included an

(Trends 2025). Partnering with Prism Partners additional 500 foundations from that database
Group (Prism), the study aimed to gather with larger total assets ($25M or more). In 2024,
similar data by a representative sample to there were 18,696 family foundations in the
advance the field’s understanding of family Candid database that met the study’s criteria
foundation practices. The Trends 2025 study (i.e., total assets of at least $2 million and total
offers more trend data, as we can now analyze annual giving of at least $100,000). We sorted
patterns across the full decade, from 2015 to the list by descending total asset size and
2025. NCFP and Prism, along with a diverse included the first 6,000 foundations from that
advisory committee of philanthropic field list. We did this to ensure that foundations with
leaders, practitioners, and evaluators, designed higher asset sizes were included in the sample,
the study’s methodology and refined it after as this group had been oversampled in the two
the 2015 and 2020 surveys to test newer and prior studies. In addition, NCFP provided its
emerging practices. database, which is composed of both NCFP
members and nonmembers.
For this Trends report, we made some changes
to the study design. First, we updated the We invited potential participants via email.
methodology to gather all data online, greatly NCFP, advisory committee members, and
improving efficiency and expanding the reach of other partners shared the link to the survey in
the study without sacrificing a comparable and their digital newsletters, social media outlets,
representative sample. (Prior studies collected personal email invitations, and in affinity
data via phone, paper, and online surveys.) Next, group newsletters and communications. In our
we modified the way we derived the participant communications, we also offered a telephone-
sample. In the previous reports, researchers based interview as an alternative to the online
selected a stratified, random sample6 of survey. Only one foundation requested a
2,000 participants from Candid’s7 nationally telephone interview.

6
The sample was stratified by total asset size and total annual giving, with an oversampling of foundations with higher asset sizes.
7
 ormerly known as Foundation Center.
F

Trends 2025 | 54
We also altered the survey design in an
important way. Given the common use of
donor-advised funds (DAFs) among family
philanthropists, we were curious to see if 30%
philanthropies were using other vehicles as
their primary vehicle for family giving. Thus,
the survey asked respondents to select their Respondents
primary vehicle. to Survey
The overwhelming majority of participants
were those who used a foundation as their
primary vehicle, with very few responses
coming from those who used other vehicles.
Therefore, for the purpose of this report we only
included data from those who selected “Family
Foundation (501c3).”8 This resulted in 524 family
Nonfamily member 64%
foundations being included in the survey data,
a slight increase compared to 2020 (n=517).
The distribution of participants demonstrates/d Founding donor 6%
that our methodology enabled us to gather a
good representation of family foundations by Family member
total giving and total asset size. Nevertheless, (not founding donor) 30%
to be sure that findings are representative of
the national database (Candid), we weighted
the data to reflect the national database, as was
done in the past two Trends.

NCFP is confident that this methodology yielded

a substantial and meaningful sample, providing
us and the field with data to explore family
foundation practices and trends over the last
decade. Please contact NCFP at [email protected]
with any questions about this study.

8
 hose who selected a DAF completed a modified survey that was more consistent with DAF practices; those data are not included in Trends,
T
but NCFP aims to use that data in future reports.

Trends 2025 | 55
Appendix
This appendix contains data tables that support the
findings and analyses in the main body of this report.
It is intended to provide a comprehensive view of the
data collected in the Trends 2025 survey. Each table
corresponds to a specific section of the report and is
labeled accordingly for ease of reference.
For the purposes of this report, all data labeled “2015” refers to data
presented in NCFP’s 2015 Trends study (data collected in 2014) and “2020”
refers to data presented in the 2020 Trends study (data collected in 2019).
Data presented in this report as “2025” were collected in 2024.

Blank cells indicate that data was not collected for this question in the
corresponding year.

For questions regarding the report’s methodology please see the

methodology section on page 54. For any questions regarding the data
contained in this report, please contact [email protected].
Foundation Identity
TABLE 1. Year foundation was created

2015 2020 2025

Before 1950 3% 4% 8%

Between 1950 and 1969 12% 9% 8%

Between 1970 and 1989 16% 16% 11%

Between 1990 and 2009 59% 58% 44%

After 2010 10% 13% 28%

TABLE 2. Foundation’s approximate total assets

2015 2020 2025

Less than $1 million 15% 17% 10%

$1 to $9.9 million 55% 57% 43%

$10 to $49.9 million 20% 19% 31%

$50 to $199.9 million 7% 5% 12%

$200 million or more 3% 2% 4%

TABLE 3. Reason the founder and/or the family chose a foundation as a primary vehicle
Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

To create a vehicle for long-term family

55%
philanthropy legacy

Advised by a lawyer/estate planner 39%

Trends 2025 | 57
 2015 2020 2025

To create a vehicle to engage next generation

32%
in philanthropy

To provide structure for the operations and

20%
governance of our giving

To support a specific community 8%

Cost-effective way to create a formal giving vehicle 10%

To support a specific cause 9%

Do not know 5%

Do not know—founder is deceased and did not share

5%
this information with family

To maximize strategic flexibility in the future 7%

To minimize ongoing management and administrative

7%
costs of our giving

Advised by a philanthropic consultant 6%

Ability to give anonymously or privately 4%

Advised by a business associate, colleague, or mentor 3%

Ability to invest in both for-profits and nonprofits 6%

TABLE 4. Foundation’s areas of focus  Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

One or more issues 54% 54% 74%

Geographic 64% 64% 64%

Racial/ethnic/cultural 4% 12%

Faith-based 11%

Trends 2025 | 58
 2015 2020 2025

No focus 6%

Other focus 8%

TABLE 5. Reasons for the focus  Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Founding donor’s intent 61% 64%

Family’s current connection to community or issue 61% 48%

The desire to direct resources for greatest impact 47% 44%

Long history of funding in this area 37% 35%

It responds to the most pressing needs of

32% 25%
the community/region or issue area

We have special expertise in the needs of the

29% 15%
community/region or issue area

Family identifies racially/ethnically/culturally 9% 4%

Family identifies religiously 4%

TABLE 6. Type of geographic focus  Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Local 64% 41% 66%

Regional 29% 38% 27%

Statewide 20% 52% 17%

National 21% 9% 10%

International 13% 9% 12%

Trends 2025 | 59
TABLE 7. Issue areas of focus  Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Education, college access, literacy 38% 40%

Environment, sustainability, climate 18% 30%

Human rights, civil liberties, civil rights (includes

10% 24%
voting rights, criminal justice, LGBTQ rights, etc.)

Healthcare, health, wellness, nutrition 18% 21%

Poverty, hunger, homelessness 27% 14%

Economic opportunity/inclusion, jobs, workforce,

18% 12%
employment, job training

Youth empowerment, development, violence

6% 11%
prevention

Community initiatives, services, and development 17% 10%

Social services, family services 25% 7%

Women’s issues, reproductive justice, health 11% 7%

Religious organizations, advancement, issues 8% 5%

Research, medical research, scientific research 3% 4%

TABLE 8. The extent to which the founding donors’ intent is followed at the foundation

2015 2020 2025

Very closely 65% 63%

Not very closely 3% <1%

Somewhat closely 26% 24%

Trends 2025 | 60
 2015 2020 2025

Does not apply; the donor(s) did not have a

4% 10%
specific intent

There is a lack of clarity or disagreement regarding

1% 3%
the donors’ intent

TABLE 9. Decision to limit the life of the foundation

2015 2020 2025

Yes, we decided to limit the life of the foundation 9% 9% 13%

No, we decided to operate in perpetuity 29% 28% 28%

No, but we revisit this question periodically 20% 18% 26%

No, we have not made a decision at this time 42% 45% 32%

TABLE 10. Effectiveness  For those who reported “strongly” or “somewhat agree”

2015 2020 2025

The internal operations of the family’s philanthropy

90% 77%
are effective

The family members engaged in the philanthropy

90% 73%
work well together

Trends 2025 | 61
Grantmaking
TABLE 11. Foundation’s total amount of giving in past fiscal year

2015 2020 2025

Less than $100,000 8% 5% 18%

$100,000 to $499,999 57% 49% 30%

$500,000 to $999,999 11% 20% 15%

$1 to $4.9 million 18% 20% 26%

$5 to $10 million 3% 4% 5%

Over $10 million 2% 2% 5%

TABLE 12. Number of grants given in past fiscal year

2015 2020 2025

Less than 10 18% 20% 19%

10 to 24 31% 31% 31%

25 to 49 21% 28% 24%

50 to 99 20% 14% 19%

100 to 199 6% 6% 5%

200 to 499 3% 1% 2%

500 or more 0% 0% <1%

Trends 2025 | 62
TABLE 13. Approximate payout rate in past two years

2015 2020 2025

5% of the corpus 38% 34% 25%

5.1 to 6% of the corpus 24% 29% 32%

6.1 to 8% of the corpus 10% 13% 18%

8.1 to 10% of the corpus 6% 11% 8%

More than 10% of the corpus 15% 3% 13%

100%, we are a pass-through 7% 10% 4%

TABLE 14. Change in payout since 2019

2015 2020 2025

Increase 36%

Decrease 13%

No change 51%

TABLE 15. Criteria or guidelines used to guide the foundation’s giving

Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Program areas that reflect issues the

76% 73% 62%
foundation supports

Strategies/approaches for creating change on issues

the foundation supports (including theory of change 37% 50% 31%
or strategic plan)

Trends 2025 | 63
 2015 2020 2025

Targets or measurable goals in relation to issues the

27% 41% 19%
foundation supports

Diversity, equity, and inclusion goals or strategies 24% 21%

Social justice 25% 25%

TABLE 16. Factors that influence foundation’s general giving approach

Only includes data on those who responded that the factor influences their giving approach “a lot”

2015 2020 2025

Historic funding patterns 51% 52% 42%

Founding donors’ values and wishes 76% 67% 58%

Family’s values and wishes 63% 61% 57%

Interests of individual board members 49% 36% 39%

Philanthropy’s mission/program areas 57% 59% 72%

Needs of grantseekers 23% 26% 43%

Response to community needs/trends 25% 37% 42%

Fluctuation in the foundation’s assets 13% 11% 15%

Public spending priorities 2% 7% 2%

Diversity, equity, and inclusion considerations 15% 15%

Trends 2025 | 64
TABLE 17. Grantee requirements  Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Report on outcomes 57% 59% 45%

Submit a financial report 45% 46% 39%

Submit a descriptive report of activities undertaken

52% 60% 42%
with grant money

Set and measure program goals/targets 34% 32% 21%

Sign a formal grant agreement with the foundation 35% 50% 38%

Submit a proposal or application for grants via an

44% 30%
online portal

Submit a printed proposal or application for grants 40% 25%

Report on diversity, equity, and inclusion goals

7% 5%
or outcomes

TABLE 18. Types of giving  Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Provide general operating support grants 83% 69% 66%

Provide multiyear grants 68% 61% 62%

Provide capacity-building grants or assistance 63% 47% 53%

Provide support for individual leaders and

8% 14% 16%
social entrepreneurs

Operate programs directly 8% 17% 6%

Co-fund projects with other funders (e.g., participate

34% 34%
in funder collaboratives)

Support or promote peer-to-peer nonprofit learning 25% 22%

Explore or use mission-related/impact investing 25%

Trends 2025 | 65
 2015 2020 2025

Seek out or prioritize grantees whose

leaders have lived experience in the issues the 25%
philanthropy supports

Accept grant applications on a rolling basis 22%

Use set giving cycles 25%

Use participatory grantmaking 8%

TABLE 19. Principle-based grantmaking practices adopted and sustained since 2020
Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Streamlined our application and/or reporting 40%

Took steps to “do the homework” on prospective

32%
grantees in the pre-proposal stages

Introduced and/or increased the number of

29%
unrestricted grants

Instituted more support “beyond the check” 23%

Moved to multiyear grants 20%

Improved our systems and structures to identify

17%
underfunded and/or overlooked grantee partners

Switched from narrative to verbal reporting 18%

We have not taken any of these actions 18%

We have taken other actions not reflected above

6%
(please specify)

Are you considering any of these practices in the

73%
future? (yes)

Trends 2025 | 66
TABLE 20. Philanthropy practices: Impact investing

2015 2020 2025

Impact investing (any type) 19% 28% 19%

PRI-debt 7%

PRI-equity 9%

MRI-private 9%

MRI or ESG public 11%

We are exploring mission-related/impact investments

5%
but we have not yet made these types of investments

Has a target percentage for MRI/impact investing 19%

We have achieved the target 66%

We are working toward the target 34%

TABLE 21. How foundations are assessing the impact of their work
Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Assess individual grant outcomes 60% 38% 38%

Solicit direct feedback from our grantees and/or the

27% 38%
communities we serve

Strive to assess our impact on issues or program areas 40% 47% 27%

Assess the role and performance of the staff 26% 22%

Strive to assess the total impact of the

33% 39% 20%
foundation’s giving

Trends 2025 | 67
 2015 2020 2025

Analyze the racial/ethnic or other demographics of

13% 12%
our grantee organizations

Assess the role and performance of the board 21% 8%

Assess diversity, equity, inclusion outcomes 16% 5%

We do not do this currently but are exploring how to 41% 10% 14%
assess our impact

We do not assess the impact of our giving 18% 16%

TABLE 22. Ways individual family members give in addition to the family’s primary shared
philanthropic vehicle Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Other private or operating foundation(s) 20% 14% 12%

Donor-advised funds at community foundations 29% 37% 17%

Donor-advised funds affiliated with

12% 13%
financial institutions
10%*
Donor-advised funds at other institutions/
13% 4%
organizations

Supporting organization(s) 44% 32% 15%

Social venture funds 5% 12% 3%

Family business contributions 19% 19% 12%

Giving circles 6% 18% 9%

Corporate giving tied to family business 6%

Direct support of nonprofit organizations 56% 57%

Other public (e.g., regranting public charities) 9% 8% 2%

*Reported as “any other donor-advised fund.” Trends 2025 | 68

Reflection and Learning
TABLE 23. How boards learn about new ideas and approaches related to grantmaking,
issues in the community, etc. Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Reading materials on these topics 84% 52% 55%

Site visits/community tours 73% 48% 53%

Presentations to the board by staff

72% 55% 50%
and/or board members

Participation in external learning opportunities 49% 53% 48%

Participation on nonprofit boards 74% 42% 36%

Participation in funder networks 32% 26% 31%

Presentations to the board by outside experts 39% 43% 30%

Communications and interaction on social media 10% 7%

TABLE 24. Foundations that have taken steps to expand from grantmaking to become an
active learning institution

2015 2020 2025

Yes, we have taken steps to become an active learning 19% 33%

institution

No, but we are exploring this 33% 23%

No, and have no plans to explore this 48% 44%

Trends 2025 | 69
TABLE 25. Activities foundation engages in to become an active learning institution
Respondents who reported having taken steps to become learning institutions could select all
that applied

2015 2020 2025

Attending philanthropy-focused conferences 81%

Conducting group site visits 71%

Gathering feedback from grantees about

77%
their experiences

Regularly bringing in outside speakers to board

61%
meetings (at least once a year)

Integrating grantee and community feedback into

62%
operations and grantmaking

Using NCFP programs and resources 60%

Evaluating the outcomes of grantmaking strategies 48%

Providing specialized training for board and staff

40%
members (at least once a year)

Family Dynamics
TABLE 26. Ways the foundation encourages younger generations of family members
to participate Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Invite younger-generation members to sit on the

67%
board as voting members

Invite younger-generation members to sit on the

36%
board as nonvoting members

Support a junior board for younger family members 11% 9% 11%

Trends 2025 | 70
 2015 2020 2025

Provide discretionary or matching funds for

50% 26% 31%
grantmaking by younger generation

Have younger-generation members serve as interns at

11% 11%
the foundation

Take younger generation members on site visits 56% 36% 28%

Organize formal discussions about the core values of

the family foundation with younger generation 62% 26% 21%
members

Invite younger generation members to participate in

40% 40%
discussions and decisions about board grants

Invite younger generation members to participate in

40% 43%
decision-making or governance

We encourage individual giving back to society as an

51% 40%
explicit family value

TABLE 27. Generational dynamics that affect the family philanthropy

Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Older and younger generations are interested in

40% 28% 21%
different issues

Older and younger generations have different values 13% 10%

Younger generation does not have time to be

28% 33% 35%
actively involved

Younger generation has moved away from the primary

15% 24%
geographic location of the foundation’s funding

Conflicting political/social/religious views

8% 16%
between generations

Conflicting views about wealth between generations 6% 12%

Trends 2025 | 71
 2015 2020 2025

Older generation is reluctant to share decision-making

23% 12% 10%
power with younger generation

Generations have different opinions about how

17% 12%
to achieve results and impact with funds

Younger generation does not value the legacy

7% 4% 4%
of the donor(s)

Older generation does not perceive younger

3% 2%
generation’s input as valuable/important

Generations have different opinions about what types

10% 8%
of investments the foundation should hold

Generations have different opinions about how

transparent the foundation should be regarding its 8% 6%
giving/grants

Generations differ in their desire for technology

6% 7%
(e.g., having a website, online grant application)

Older and younger generations have different values

4% 11%
and understanding of racial equity

TABLE 28. Factors that sustain family members’ participation in the foundation over time
Only includes data on those who responded that the factor helps sustain family members'
participation “a lot”

2015 2020 2025

Stronger family relationships 42% 61% 49%

Impact of our giving 71% 56% 56%

Commitment to donors’ and/or family’s

51% 55%
philanthropic legacy

Opportunity to engage younger generations over time 37% 40% 31%

Trends 2025 | 72
TABLE 29. Factors that impede family members’ participation in the foundation over time
Only includes data on those who responded that the factor impedes family members' participation in
the foundation “a lot”

2015 2020 2025

Geographic dispersion of family members 13% 14% 17%

Disinterest in focus areas among family members 3% 8% 8%

Phase of life/other commitments of family members 17% 16% 28%

Lack of results 1% 3% 1%

Lack of staffing 1% 7% 1%

Unclear/inadequate governance structure/policies 1% 5% 2%

Lack of planning for the future 3% 4% 1%

Dysfunctional family dynamics 7% 14%

Disagreement about the primary goal/focus of

5% 3%
the philanthropy

Governance, Staff & Operations

TABLE 30. Persons eligible to serve as a board member

2015 2020 2025

Children/grandchildren of family members 65% 68%

Spouses of family members 51% 49%

Both spouses and domestic partners of

37% 26% 22%
family members

Independent members 33% 43% 39%

Trends 2025 | 73
TABLE 31. Number of family board members

2015 2020 2025

0 2% 1%

1 to 2 33% 23%

3 to 5 46% 49%

6 or more 19% 27%

TABLE 32. Number of independent board members (of those that allow independent
board members)

2020 2025

0 35% 20%

1 to 2 30% 37%

3 to 5 26% 37%

6 or more 10% 7%

TABLE 33. Fees paid to individual trustees (inclusive of retainer, meeting, committee fees)

2015 2020 2025

No fees or reimbursements are paid 35% 50%

Only to reimburse out-of-pocket expenses

30% 31%
(e.g., travel)

Less than $500 annually 6% <1%

$500 to $4,999 annually 17% 7%

$5,000 to $9,999 annually 7% 4%

$10,000 to $19,999 annually 3% 3%

Trends 2025 | 74
 2015 2020 2025

$20,000 to $29,999 annually 1% 2%

$30,000 or $39,999 annually <1%

$40,000 to $49,999 annually 2%

1%*
$50,000 to $59,999 annually 1%

$60,000 or more annually <1%

TABLE 34. Who received taxable compensation for their participation on the board in the
last fiscal year
Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Board chair 12%

Family board members 11%

Independent board members 9%

Committee chairs 1%

TABLE 35. Board members by family generation  Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

1st generation/founding donor(s) 73% 61% 50%

2nd generation 67% 59% 62%

3rd generation 23% 32% 34%

4th generation 7% 6% 13%

5th generation 3% 3%

6th generation and beyond 1% 1%

*In 2020, the largest option provided was “$30,000 or Trends 2025 | 75
more annually.”
TABLE 36. Number of board members by generation

2015 2020 2025

Younger than 22-years old

0 95% 83%

1 5% 6%

2 or more 12%

Age 22 to 38

0 64% 22%

1 13% 33%

2 17% 25%

3 or more 7% 18%

Age 39 to 54

0 31% 15%

1 12% 27%

2 21% 25%

3 19% 8%

4 or more 18% 24%

Age 55 to 74

0 10% 4%

1 18% 33%

2 34% 22%

3 18% 17%

4 or more 21% 24%

Trends 2025 | 76
 2015 2020 2025

75-years old or older

0 68% 15%

1 15% 54%

2 12% 25%

3 or more 5% 8%

TABLE 37. Composition of board: Race

2015 2020 2025

Any person of color 35% 35%

Any member who identifies as:

Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander 13% 10%

Black/African American 12% 17%

Hispanic/Latino/Latina/Latinx 10% 14%

 ative American/American Indian/Alaska Native/

N 5% 1%
Native Hawaiian

Multiracial or multiethnic 3% 11%

Other 1% 2%

TABLE 38. Composition of board: LGBTQ

2015 2020 2025

Any member who identifies as LGBTQ 11% 19%

Trends 2025 | 77
TABLE 39. Composition of board: Gender

2015 2020 2025

Cisgender male* 55% 47%

Cisgender female* 45% 51%

Other gender (includes gender nonconforming,

3%
transgender male, other gender)

TABLE 40. How board members are identified when independent members are eligible to
serve on the board Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Through the networks of our board 63%

Identifying local leaders who reflect the expertise

33%
of our issue area(s)

Identifying local leaders with lived experience that

23%
is related to our issue area(s)

Identifying national leaders who reflect the expertise

10%
of our issue area(s)

Identifying national leaders with lived experience that

6%
is related to our issue area(s)

Open call with a job description <1%

*In 2020 the options given were “Male” and “Female.” Trends 2025 | 78
TABLE 41. Do you allow discretionary grants? If yes, in what cases does your foundation
allow individual board members to recommend discretionary grants for funding?
Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Yes, we allow discretionary grants 86% 64% 68%

No, we do not allow discretionary grants 14% 36% 32%

Among those who allow for discretionary grants Participants selected all that applied

Grants can be in support of any issue 68% 30% 47%

 rants must meet the overall mission of

G
80% 65% 34%
the foundation

Grants must be approved by the board 91% 59% 35%

 rants must be within the program areas of

G
62% 65% 24%
the foundation

TABLE 42. Percentage of foundation’s annual grantmaking budget which is discretionary

2015 2020 2025

Among those who allow for discretionary grants

Less than 5% 41%

5% to 10% 24%

11% to 15% 9%

16% to 20% 8%

21% to 50% 8%

More than 50% 9%

Trends 2025 | 79
TABLE 43. Areas in which the board spends the most of its time and attention
Participants selected their top three

2015 2020 2025

Planning and strategy development 21% 42% 36%

Learning about grantmaking and focus areas/issues 10% 24% 34%

Evaluation and reflection on the foundation’s work 31% 38% 33%

Investment management 45% 48% 28%

Next-generation engagement 22% 17% 26%

Site visits/community tours 16% 31% 26%

Governance of the foundation 17% 30% 25%

External/community relations 4% 14% 8%

Staff management/operations 4% 14% 7%

Learning about governance and operations 1% 13% 5%

DEI training/development 4% 5%

TABLE 44. Has the family had discussions about the source of its wealth and how it could
inform its strategy?

2015 2020 2025

Yes 41%

No 52%

No, but we are considering it 7%

Trends 2025 | 80
TABLE 45. Types of board committees or advisory groups used (data from those
who use any) Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Investments 83% 79% 68%

Finance and/or audits 71% 34% 50%

Governance 18% 21% 37%

Program/grantmaking 32% 39% 36%

Next generation 25% 10% 24%

Management/personnel 24% 30% 9%

Community/program advisory 10% 10% 7%

Diversity, equity, and inclusion 9% 3%

TABLE 46. Overview of staff

2015 2020 2025

No staff 15% 20%

Have staff 85% 80%

Of those who have staff

Both family and nonfamily 45% 12%

Nonfamily staff only 25% 34%

Family staff only 15% 34%

Trends 2025 | 81
TABLE 47. Composition of foundation staff

2015 2020 2025

Number of family members who are foundation staff members

0 41% 54%

1 20% 33%

2 21% 6%

3 or more 18% 7%

Number of nonfamily members who are foundation staff members

0 31% 47%

1 26% 20%

2 15% 13%

3 or more 29% 20%

TABLE 48. Who is responsible for day-to-day operations

Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Unpaid family member 69% 46% 40%

Paid family member 25% 24% 23%

Unpaid nonfamily member 4% 7% 1%

Paid nonfamily member 43% 46% 36%

Advisors/consultants/advisory firm 26% 14% 10%

Trends 2025 | 82
TABLE 49. Staff members added in past five years  Participants selected all that applied

2015 2020 2025

Added an executive director/CEO 6% 12% 14%

Added program-focused staff 11% 27% 9%

Added admin./operational staff 14% 24% 9%

Added finance/accounting staff 6% 16% 4%

Added other staff 1% 0% 4%

Added consultants or outsourcing support 16% 12% 23%

Diversity, equity, and inclusion personnel 9% 1%

TABLE 50. What and how the foundation communicates

2015 2020 2025

About giving priorities, via website/other vehicles 31% 61% 47%

About giving processes (e.g., dates when proposals

are due or when decisions will be made, etc.), via 32% 55% 44%
website or other vehicles

We tell grant applicants the reasons that their

50% 55% 42%
proposal was declined

We solicit feedback from our grantees 36% 29% 38%

We accept unsolicited letters of inquiry and/or

47% 32% 27%
unsolicited proposals

We communicate explicitly about our diversity,

9% 11%
equity, and inclusion goals

Trends 2025 | 83
Looking Ahead
TABLE 51. Changes regarding the board and staff that the foundation is anticipating
or considering in the next four years

2015 2020 2025

Add/increase the number of younger family members

42% 37% 37%
on the board

Give younger generations more say in the

28% 34%
philanthropy’s operations and giving

Change in board leadership 24% 25% 22%

Add/increase the number of independent members

13% 21% 20%
on the board

Expand the existing number of staff members 12% 27% 8%

Add/increase other forms of diversity of the board

13% 11%
(e.g., gender, age, income level)

Increase considerations of the role of racial equity

9%
in our operations

Add/increase the racial/ethnic diversity of the board 4% 21% 8%

Create an advisory committee of community

4% 16% 10%
members or program experts

Change in senior staff leadership 10% 10% 10%

Hire staff for the first time 10% 8% 7%

TABLE 52. Changes to assets the foundation is anticipating or considering in the

next four years

2015 2020 2025

Receive additional assets 51% 31% 27%

Increase payout rate 19% 29% 20%

Trends 2025 | 84
 2015 2020 2025

Expand mission or impact investing 12% 29% 13%

Align investment assets with social/family values 22% 18% 8%

Institute mission or impact investing 9% 20% 10%

Change investment strategy 12% 20% 13%

Reduce assets significantly 4% 9% 5%

Decrease payout rate 6% 2% 5%

TABLE 53. Changes to giving practices the foundation is anticipating in the

next four years

2015 2020 2025

Initiate/increase multiyear grants 25% 30% 24%

Initiate/increase general operating/unrestricted grants 20% 17% 21%

Give fewer, larger grants 29% 18% 18%

Initiate/increase capacity-building support 15% 27% 12%

Initiate/expand support for emerging nonprofits 18% 19% 13%

Focus or narrow giving program 22% 17% 13%

Adopt a new giving strategy 15% 20% 12%

Apply a racial equity perspective to giving 13% 13%

Expand giving priorities 22% 31% 8%

Initiate/increase public-policy activities 6% 9% 5%

Use participatory grantmaking 7%

Trends 2025 | 85
TABLE 54. Changes to evaluation and transparency the foundation is anticipating in the
next four years

2015 2020 2025

Initiate/expand opportunities for grantees to provide

22% 29% 22%
feedback or input

Initiate/expand data collection on the philanthropy’s

25% 26% 16%
outcomes or impacts

Increase transparency by expanding reporting about

17% 30% 16%
the philanthropy

Initiate/expand evaluation of grantees or clusters

25% 18% 15%
of grantees

Increase transparency by reporting on the

36% 8%
demographics of your board, staff, and/or grantees

Trends 2025 | 86
Acknowledgements
NCFP would like to thank the many people who contributed to this report, starting with the
hundreds of family foundation staff and board members who took the time to fill out the survey. We
are also grateful for the support of Bank of America and the time and expertise of our Trends 2025
Advisory Committee:

Don Chen (Co-Chair), President, Erin Hogan, Managing Director, Philanthropic

Surdna Foundation Market Executive, Bank of America Private Bank

Katherine Lorenz (Co-Chair), President, Peter Laugharn, President & CEO, Conrad N.
The Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation Hilton Foundation

Elisha Smith Arrillaga, Vice President, Janine Lee, President & CEO, Philanthropy
Research, Center for Effective Philanthropy Southeast (In Memoriam)

Ashley Blanchard, Trustee, Hill-Snowdon Elaine Martyn, Senior Vice President, Private
Foundation; Head of Philanthropy, Lansberg Donor Group, Fidelity Charitable
Gersick Advisors
Jaimie Mayer, Board Chair, Nathan Cummings
Jason Burnett, Chair, The David & Lucile Foundation
Packard Foundation
Anthony Richardson, President, The George
Alexa Cortés Culwell, President, Gund Foundation
Sobrato Philanthropies
Shaady Salehi, Executive Director, The Trust-
George Davis, Program Officer, Building Based Philanthropy Project
Institutions and Networks, Ford Foundation
Melissa Stevens, Executive Vice President,
Jennifer Davis, President, Flora Family Philanthropy, Milken Institute
Foundation
Kimberly Dasher Tripp, Founder, Strategy
Aaron Dorfman, President & CEO, National for Scale
Committee for Responsive Philanthropy
Melinda Tuan, Managing Director, Fund
Liz Dozier, Founder & CEO, Chicago Beyond for Shared Insight

Betsy Erickson, Managing Director, Head of Edgar Villanueva, Founder & Principal,
Family and Individual Services, Arabella Advisors Leverage Philanthropic Partners; Founder &
CEO, Decolonizing Wealth Project
Stacey Faella, Executive Director,
Woodcock Foundation

We would also like to acknowledge all those who contributed to the production of this report,
including Miki Akimoto, Farah Ameen, Jason Born, Baree Fehrenbach, Asha Hossain, Molly Lyons,
Maggie McGoldrick, Nicholas Tedesco, Christy Vickers, and Ting Yu.

Trends 2025 | 87
ABOUT

The National Center for

Family Philanthropy
The National Center for Family Philanthropy is a network of
philanthropic families committed to a world that is vibrant, equitable,
and resilient. We share proven practices, work through common
challenges, and learn together to strengthen our ability to effect
meaningful change. Our range of programs and services supports family
philanthropy at its many points of inflection and helps families embrace
proven practices and advance momentum. Explore our resources, all
rooted in a Family Giving Lifecycle, by visiting www.ncfp.org.

ABOUT

Prism Partners Group

Prism Partners Group supports nonprofits, foundations, and public
organizations by promoting a culture of learning and reflection, creating
opportunities for leaders and staff members to translate data into
meaning and action. We are researchers that first consider the current
and historical context of what we are assessing and then how data will
be used and by whom to ensure that we include as many perspectives
as possible to create a holistic and informed collection of data with
which to make decisions, develop strategies, and evaluate outcomes.

Trends 2025 | 88
 A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR

At Bank of America, we know that philanthropy is about more than giving

money—it is about pursuing goals of great personal importance. Whether
you wish to establish or continue your tradition of giving, unite your
family around common purpose, or contribute your own experience in
new ways, our philanthropic team is dedicated to supporting your efforts.

We are committed to understanding your priorities as a giving family, and placing those needs at the
center of the design and delivery of every relationship. Currently, Bank of America Private Bank and
Merrill oversee $144.9 billion1 in philanthropic client assets. We manage over 4,900 private foundation
accounts and manage $24.2 billion2 in private foundation client assets. We also manage $52.0 billion3
in client assets for institutional nonprofit client relationships. Our staff of over 180 philanthropic
specialists located across the country has an array of experience in serving the nonprofit sector. Our
team brings a depth of experience and resources related to strategic philanthropy, family wealth,
and nonprofit management to our philanthropic relationships. Over many years of collaborating
with charitable individuals, corporations, and nonprofit institutions, we have developed specialized
advisory services, investment management and fiduciary administrative solutions to help you meet
your mission.

At Bank of America,4 we have the clear purpose to help make financial lives better through the power
of every connection. And we recognize that philanthropy can provide the most powerful and fulfilling
connections of all.

Please visit privatebank.bankofamerica.com/philanthropy to learn more about how we can help you
pursue your philanthropic aspirations.

1
Bank of America. Global Wealth and Investment Management (GWIM), the wealth and investment management division of Bank of America
Corporation. As of June 30, 2024, GWIM had approximately $144.9 billion in Philanthropic Client Assets. Philanthropic Client Assets consists
of the following assets of philanthropic clients held in their GWIM accounts: assets under management (AUM) of GWIM entities, client
brokerage assets, assets in custody of GWIM entities, deposits of GWIM clients held at Bank of America, N.A. and affiliated banks and assets in
custody included in AUM.
2 Bank of America. Global Wealth and Investment Management (GWIM), the wealth and investment management division of Bank of America
Corporation. As of June 30, 2024, GWIM had approximately $24.2 billion in client assets in private foundation accounts. Client assets consists
of the following assets of private foundation clients held in their GWIM accounts: assets under management (AUM) of GWIM entities, client
brokerage assets, assets in custody of GWIM entities, deposits of GWIM clients held at Bank of America, N.A. and affiliated banks and assets
in custody included in AUM.
3 Bank of America. Global Wealth and Investment Management (GWIM), the wealth and investment management division of Bank of America
Corporation. As of June 30, 2024, GWIM had approximately $52.0 billion in client assets for institutional nonprofit clients. Client assets
consists of the following assets of nonprofit clients held in their GWIM accounts: assets under management (AUM) of GWIM entities, client
brokerage assets, assets in custody of GWIM entities, deposits of GWIM clients held at Bank of America, N.A. and affiliated banks and assets
in custody included in AUM.
4B  ank of America, N.A. and U.S. Trust Company of Delaware (collectively the “Bank”) do not serve in a fiduciary capacity with respect to
all products or services. Fiduciary standards or fiduciary duties do not apply, for example, when the Bank is offering or providing credit
strategies, banking, custody or brokerage products/services or referrals to other affiliates of the Bank.

Trends 2025 | 89
©2024 National Center for Family Philanthropy