U.S. Donor-Advised Fund Comparison:
Contributions In vs. Grants Out

Donor-advised funds have become the fastest-growing vehicle in U.S. philanthropy, but the central tension remains: are they accelerating giving, or warehousing it? The Form 990 data tells a clear story. In every year from 2019 to 2023, contributions into DAF sponsors exceeded grants paid out to charities. The cumulative gap over five years: approximately $76.7 billion in contributions that were deposited but not yet distributed.

This doesn't mean the money disappears — it sits in DAF accounts earning investment returns, and donors may distribute it in future years. But it does mean that for every dollar contributed to a DAF, significantly less than a dollar reaches an operating charity in the same year. In 2023, the grant-to-contribution ratio across all 23 sponsors was 72% — meaning 28 cents of every dollar contributed stayed in DAF accounts.

Not all DAF sponsors are equal when it comes to distributing funds. The payout rate — grants paid as a percentage of total assets — ranges from under 6% to nearly 40% across the 23 sponsors tracked. The variation reflects fundamentally different organizational models, donor bases, and institutional cultures around giving.

Combined assets across the 23 tracked DAF sponsors grew from $104.5 billion in 2019 to $175.0 billion in 2023 — a 67% increase in just four years. This growth comes from three sources: new contributions, investment returns on existing assets, and the gap between what comes in and what goes out.

National Philanthropic Trust experienced the most dramatic growth: from $10.9 billion to $42.2 billion — a 287% increase in four years. NPT's model of serving as a white-label DAF platform for financial advisors and institutions has made it one of the fastest-growing entities in all of philanthropy. Schwab Charitable grew 139% over the same period, from $17.2 billion to $41.1 billion.

American Online Giving Foundation — operating as Benevity — represents a fundamentally different model from traditional DAF sponsors. With $2.0 billion in contributions and $2.0 billion in grants on just $376 million in assets, Benevity functions as a giving pipeline rather than a holding vehicle. Its 96% grant-to-contribution ratio means nearly every dollar in goes right back out, typically through corporate employee giving programs.

Similarly, several community foundations and faith-based sponsors show grant-to-contribution ratios above 100%, meaning they distributed more than they received in contributions during the year — drawing down from prior-year balances or investment returns. Silicon Valley Community Foundation (106%), Jewish Communal Fund (117%), New York Community Trust (181%), and Donors Trust (122%) all granted out more than they took in during their most recent filing year.

The data reveals a clear split between financial-services DAF sponsors (Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Raymond James) and community foundations (Chicago Community Trust, Greater Kansas City, NY Community Trust, Silicon Valley CF). Financial-services DAFs tend to hold larger absolute assets but distribute at moderate rates. Community foundations often show higher payout rates relative to new contributions, reflecting their role as active grantmakers with community ties.

The data fuels an ongoing policy debate: should donor-advised funds be required to distribute a minimum percentage of their assets each year, similar to the 5% payout rule for private foundations? Proponents argue that the tax deduction is immediate but the charitable benefit is deferred — and sometimes indefinitely. Critics counter that voluntary payout rates already exceed the 5% foundation minimum and that mandates would reduce donor flexibility.

The Form 990 data shows that most large DAF sponsors do pay out well above 5% of assets annually. But the grant-to-contribution ratio tells a different story: at sponsors like NPT (38%) and Renaissance (36%), far more is coming in than going out. Whether this represents responsible stewardship or unnecessary accumulation depends on your perspective — but the data makes the scale of the question impossible to ignore.