Giving in Minnesota, 2006 Edition
Giving in Minnesota Sample Trends:
Grantmaking by Support Type
This section describes trends and patterns in grantmaking by support type by the
Giving in Minnesota sample of the largest 110 grant makers in the state that
made $1 million and more in grants. As in the case of geographic area and
intended beneficiary, the Council applies the Grant Classification System (GCS)
to code support type. The Council only codes support types clearly articulated
in the grant description. In 2004, the Council was able to code 74 percent of
the Giving in Minnesota sample’s grants by support type.
Trends by support type reveal that each category ranked the same in relation to the other categories, with minimal shifts in percentage of grant dollars since 2002. Despite a decrease in share of grant dollars, from 48.6 percent in 2003 to 45.6 percent in 2004, Program Support continued to rank first in share of grant dollars for the third consecutive year. General Support and Capital Support continued to remain steady, ranking second and third, respectively, with a minimal 1.9-percent increase to 29.3 percent in 2004 and a 1.5-percent increase to 15.4 percent in 2004, respectively.
Support Type Funding by Grantmaker Type
For the second consecutive year, each grantmaker type allotted its highest
shares of grant dollars to Program Support, followed by General Support and
Capital Support. There were, however, shifts in the percentage of shares of
grant dollars by each grantmaker allotted to these three support-type
categories.
Private Foundations
While private foundations maintained General Support as the chief support type in 2004, they were the only grantmakers that decreased (5.6 percent) their share of grant dollars for Program Support, down from 46.5 percent in 2003 to 40.9 percent in 2004. These foundations, however, had a corresponding increase (5.4 percent) in share of grant dollars to Capital Support, up from 13.2 percent in 2003 to 18.6 percent in 2004.
Corporate Foundations and Giving Programs
Corporate foundations and giving programs had the highest increase (1.8 percent) in share of grant dollars to Program Support compared to other grantmaker types, up from 51.8 percent in 2003 to 53.6 percent in 2004. While all grantmaker types saw some increase in their shares of grant dollars to Capital Support, corporate foundations and giving programs saw a decline of 3.9 percent from 13.7 percent in 2003 to 9.8 percent in 2004, possibly related to the timing of capital campaign commitments. There was also a decrease in share of grant dollars to Student Aid Funds from 5.8 percent in 2003 to 4.3 percent in 2004.
Community/Public Foundations
Community/public foundations had the smallest shifts in share of grant dollars by support type compared to private foundations and corporate grantmakers. Program Support continued to have the highest share of grant dollars, remaining at a constant 43.2 percent. Community/public foundations were the only grantmaker type that decreased share of grant dollars to General Support, down from 32.6 percent in 2003 to 31.8 percent in 2004. They were, however, the only grantmaker type that increased its share in grant dollars to Student Aid Funds support, up from 3.2 percent in 2003 to 4.4 percent in 2004.
|
|
Giving in Minnesota
2006 Edition
|
|
Table of Contents
|
Index
Section I:
Introduction
Section II:
Key Findings
Section III:
Minnesota Giving Overview
Section IV:
Sample Trends
Section V:
Methodology
Section VI:
Appendices
|
About This Report
|
Giving in Minnesota, an annual research report produced by the Minnesota Council on Foundations since 1984, provides a comprehensive analysis of the trends and patterns of giving by organized philanthropy in the state.
This report provides an overview of giving by Minnesota foundations and corporations domestically and internationally, as well as giving by individual Minnesotans. The report also provides an in-depth analysis of the Giving in Minnesota sample of the largest Minnesota foundations and corporations by subject area, geographic area, intended beneficiary and support type.
|
|
