CONTRIBUTING STAFF Rick Schoff Senior Vice President for Information Resources and Publishing Steven Lawrence Director of Research Mirek Drozdzowski Special Projects Associate Mark Carway Programmer Aamir Cheema Editorial Assistant Janie Wong Project Assistant Bruce Thongsack Editorial Associate Cheryl Loe Director of Communications Christine Innamorato Production Coordinator, Publications ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report owes much to the 111 relief and recovery funds, listed on page 27, that responded to our survey of 9/11- related charities. Their involvement provided important insights into the process and challenges involved in the delivery of immediate disaster relief and long-term assistance. Special thanks are also due to the many 9/11 relief funds that submitted detailed information to the Foundation Center regarding their grants and beneficiaries as well as their plans for distributing unspent funds. PHILANTHROPY’S RESPONSE TO 9/11 PROJECT The Foundation Center is documenting private philanthropy’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Using our experience in collecting and analyzing giving data, we are constructing a comprehensive picture of giving by foundations and corporations in the aftermath of 9/11, as well as tracking contributions by intermediaries and direct-service providers. We are also presenting news and in-depth interviews concerning the philanthropic response to 9/11 in the Foundation Center’s online journal, Philanthropy News Digest. Some of these have been reproduced in September 11: Perspectives from the Field of Philanthropy. To access all of the Foundation Center’s 9/11-related reports and other resources, visit www.fdncenter.org/research/911. We are grateful to the following for their support of this project: the California Endowment, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Annie E. Casey Foundation, ChevronTexaco, Citigroup Foundation, Ford Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Lumina Foundation for Education, Morgan Stanley, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, New York Community Trust, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund. ABOUT THE FOUNDATION CENTER The Foundation Center’s mission is to support and improve philanthropy by promoting public understanding of the field and helping grantseekers succeed. To achieve our mission, we: · Collect, organize, and communicate information on U.S. philanthropy · Conduct and facilitate research on trends in the field · Provide education and training on the grantseeking process · Ensure public access to information and services through our World Wide Web site, print and electronic publications, five library/learning centers, and a national network of Cooperating Collections. Founded in 1956, the Center is the nation’s leading authority on philanthropy and is dedicated to serving grantseekers, grantmakers, researchers, policymakers, the media, and the general public. This report can be accessed at no charge at the Foundation Center’s Web site: www.fdncenter.org. For more information about the report, contact Loren Renz, Vice President for Research, at 212-807-3601, or e-mail [email protected]. Executive Summary Findings from a Survey of Distribution Schedule. Most respondents distributed 9/11 Relief Funds funds raised in a relatively short time frame. By June 2002, one-in-five had expended all of their donations. In spring 2003, the Foundation Center conducted a survey One year later, just over half had spent out. Three-quar- of 9/11-related relief funds. The findings presented below are ters expect to have completed their giving by June 2004. based on the responses of 111 funds. Plans for Distributing Unspent Funds. Nearly all relief Existing vs. Newly Created Agencies. Most funds in- funds with unspent contributions had specific plans for volved in 9/11-related relief and recovery were either distributing the funds. These included providing long- established in response to the crisis by existing agen- term cash assistance, maintaining ongoing programs cies, institutional donors, or nonprofit intermediaries, for victims and their families and other affected popu- or already existed. Only a relatively small number of lations, supporting recovery and rebuilding efforts, new, independent entities were formed, such as the and funding scholarships for children of victims. September 11th Fund and the Twin Towers Fund. Administrative Costs. The vast majority of respon- Scope of Activity. The majority of respondents, espe- dents did not use contributions to pay for administra- cially smaller and company-sponsored funds, acted tive costs or these costs accounted for less than 5 exclusively as regrantors or pass-throughs for gifts. percent of funds raised. Newly formed independent By comparison, larger funds were far more likely to funds and those providing services were more likely regrant funds and provide direct services. to report administrative costs. Beneficiary Groups Served. Most relief funds served Fund Allocation Policies. Reflecting the intense pres- more than one major beneficiary group. Two-thirds sure to respond quickly to emergency needs, three-in- provided direct cash assistance and/or services to in- five funds used informal needs assessments to deter- jured or deceased victims and their families, while mine fund allocations. Fewer than one-in-five con- one-half supported individuals that suffered direct ducted formal needs assessments, and this group economic losses as a result of the attacks. Well over tended to include the largest funds. one-third assisted populations and communities indi- Methods of Outreach. Respondents used a variety of rectly affected by the attacks and their aftermath. strategies to connect with target beneficiary groups, Types of Assistance Provided. Most respondents gave with more than half coordinating their efforts with multiple types of assistance, with the largest shares of other relief organizations. Among other outreach ef- funds providing direct financial aid and support for forts were advertising campaigns and placing repre- various long-term services for victims and affected sentatives at disaster relief centers. At the same time, populations. In general, the funds with greater re- more than half of the funds reported relying on word sources reported more diverse types of assistance. of mouth and their prior reputation. Methods of Fundraising. Newspaper and radio adver- tising and formal requests to grantmakers were most Tracking Distributions from often cited as ways that relief funds raised support. 9/11 Relief Funds Still, given the spontaneous public response to the cri- sis, one-in-nine indicated that either all or part of their Separate from the survey of 9/11 relief funds, the donations were unsolicited. Foundation Center has analyzed the actual donations received by 40 of the largest funds, as well as how Donor Restrictions on Funds Raised. The majority of relief these funds have distributed this support. Overall, ex- funds indicated that their giving was restricted to some ex- cluding donations from one fund to another, the funds tent by donor intent, with single-purpose funds and those have raised almost $2.9 billion for relief and recovery relying on individual donors being the most restricted. and contributed $2.2 billion. Victims injured or killed Duration of Fundraising. The time frame for collecting in the attacks and their families have benefited from 9/11-related donations was generally brief, and most the majority of support, followed by economically af- funds had stopped fundraising by early 2003. fected victims and their families. The vast majority of Yet roughly one-in-four were continuing to solicit do- donations have provided direct cash assistance. The nations, and these funds were most likely to be in- remaining distributions have mainly supported the volved in long-term relief and recovery activities. delivery of emergency relief and long-term services, and aid to affected nonprofits and businesses. 3 Introduction The unprecedented outpouring of charitable support such as: Who ultimately benefited from the philan- that followed the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks thropic response? prompted the Foundation Center to launch a multi- This report provides an overview of the activities year effort to track relief and recovery funding and beneficiaries of the funds and agencies involved by foundations, corporations, and other institutional in 9/11-related disaster relief and recovery, drawn donors. Our goal early on was to document the phil- from data compiled by the Foundation Center anthropic response as it was happening so that through September 2003. Reflecting differences in grantmakers and charities could better identify unmet sources of information, the report offers two distinct needs; and to help the field respond to questions from and complementary views of the funds: the media, government officials, and the general pub- lic. Over the longer term, our goal is to provide a defin- · Part I discusses findings from our 2003 survey itive record of the response that will help the philan- of large and small relief funds and agencies. thropic sector identify its successes and lessons The survey provides a broad perspective on the learned, so that it can respond even more effectively to activities and practices of 9/11-related charities future disasters. and considers the impact of size and sponsor In the first phase of the project—spanning the year type on patterns of assistance, sources of following the attacks—we built a comprehensive support, and timetables for distributing aid.