Charitable activity is a core tenet of most faith traditions, and many charitable organizations have a religious identity. However, little is known about the prevalence and scale of faith-based foundations, and how they differ from secular foundations. This study identifies the field of public foundations, differentiates between faith-based and secular foundations, and compares their characteristics by analyzing Form 990 data. Our analysis estimates that 24% of all public charities operate as foundations and that 17% of public foundations are faith-based. We use these findings to generate first-ever estimates for the entire field of public foundations. Based on our analysis and calculations using nonprofit sector data, there are approximately 300,000 public foundations in the U.S., and we estimate that 52,000 of them are faith-based. Collectively, these faith-based public foundations have at least $90 billion in assets, and in 2015, they contributed at least $8 billion to charitable causes. Additional analyses comparing faith-based and secular foundations indicate that faith-based foundations tend to be older, have greater revenue and more assets, receive less money from the government, and distribute more money in grants, especially to international causes. This study provides an important lens through which to examine the field of public foundations and better understand similarities and differences among faith-based and secular foundations. It can help scholars analyze relationships between religion and philanthropy, help grantmakers assess foundations through a faith-based-secular grid, and help grantees identify funders who share a similar orientation toward religion. Overall, this study reveals the meaningful presence of faith-based foundations, indicates the scale of their impact, and underscores religion's enduring and significant influence in the philanthropic sector.

No abstract

No abstract

Charitable activity is a core tenet of most faith traditions, and many charitable organizations have a religious identity. However, little is known about the prevalence and scale of faith-based foundations, and how they differ from secular foundations. This study identifies the field of public foundations, differentiates between faith-based and secular foundations, and compares their characteristics by analyzing Form 990 data. Our analysis estimates that 24% of all public charities operate as foundations and that 17% of public foundations are faith-based. We use these findings to generate first-ever estimates for the entire field of public foundations. Based on our analysis and calculations using nonprofit sector data, there are approximately 300,000 public foundations in the U.S., and we estimate that 52,000 of them are faith-based. Collectively, these faith-based public foundations have at least $90 billion in assets, and in 2015, they contributed at least $8 billion to charitable causes. Additional analyses comparing faith-based and secular foundations indicate that faith-based foundations tend to be older, have greater revenue and more assets, receive less money from the government, and distribute more money in grants, especially to international causes. This study provides an important lens through which to examine the field of public foundations and better understand similarities and differences among faith-based and secular foundations. It can help scholars analyze relationships between religion and philanthropy, help grantmakers assess foundations through a faith-based-secular grid, and help grantees identify funders who share a similar orientation toward religion. Overall, this study reveals the meaningful presence of faith-based foundations, indicates the scale of their impact, and underscores religion’s enduring and significant influence in the philanthropic sector.

Using a set of examples drawn from imperial concern with Christian theological unity in the fourth century, this essay describes the heretofore unremarked-on functioning of homonoia concepts in addition to persuasion: justification of coercion and propaganda. Grounded in the idea that unanimity and consensus are natural goods, the rhetorical form persuaded through eliciting a desire to participate in those natural goods. Such rhetoric implicitly justified coercive social policy (a.k.a. punishment) when positive persuasion proved insufficient. Additionally, imperial pundits could assert the desirability of consensus as a form of propaganda when “unanimous” decisions were publicized to imply a lack of dissent and make it harder for other would-be dissenters to find allies, therefore decreasing the likelihood of dissent elsewhere.