The $3.1 Billion Collective Giving Movement — And Why Every Dollar Was Spent Once

Between 2017 and 2023, nearly 4,000 collective giving groups across the United States mobilised 370,000 philanthropists and deployed an astonishing $3.1 billion. That's a 140% increase from the previous landscape study — in one-third of the time.

These numbers come from "In Abundance," the landmark research by Philanthropy Together and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy. It's the most comprehensive study of collective giving ever conducted: 500+ leader surveys, 1,400+ member surveys, 21 interviews, and 29 focus groups.

The findings tell us something profound: collective giving isn't a niche. It's a rapidly growing movement that's reshaping who gives, what gets funded, and how philanthropy is practiced.

The demographics of collective giving challenge every stereotype about philanthropy:

84% of groups are majority women. 60% are entirely female. 43% organised specifically around women's shared identity. With $30 trillion in assets shifting to women's hands in the coming decades, these spaces are positioning women as philanthropic leaders — not just donors.

BIPOC representation grew 50% in just four years. 28% of new members since 2019 identify as BIPOC, up from 19%. And 75% of non-white majority groups fund their own racial and ethnic communities — community self-determination through collective action.

87% of members identify as philanthropists after joining — many didn't before. The identity transformation is the product. People walk in thinking "I'm not really a philanthropist" and walk out knowing they are.

The research uncovered something unexpected: collective giving doesn't just move money. It transforms the people who participate.

91% say their sense of belonging improved. In an era of epidemic loneliness, these groups are rebuilding social fabric — one giving circle at a time.

83% feel more confident taking action to change their communities. 77% say their sense of purpose deepened. 55% report positive impact on their physical, mental, and spiritual health.

The average member stays 7.5 years. That's not a donation. That's a practice. A habit. A way of life. And during those years, members give approximately $3,000 annually through their circles — with 39% giving an additional $3,000 directly to the organisations they discover through group participation.

These aren't passive donors clicking a button. They're engaged citizens learning about their communities, debating priorities, developing leadership skills, and expanding their networks. 71% say participation positively affected their access to resources and opportunities.

The research identified seven distinct archetypes of collective giving groups:

1. Women Giving Big — 100+ members, $1,000+ per person, formal governance, endowments, paid staff
2. Crowd Granting Networks — 100+ members, ~$100 per person, informal, hyperlocal (e.g., 100 Who Care Alliance)
3. Belonging Through Identity — Small groups (<25), consensus-based, solidarity giving tied to shared identity
4. Organising for Social Change — Mobilising others, funding non-traditional recipients including 501(c)(4) organisations
5. Community Project Microgrants — Small grants ($500–$2,000) to individual projects, trust-based
6. Live Crowdfunding Experiences — Pop-up events, one-off giving, gateway to the movement
7. Host-Supporting Groups — Connected to a specific nonprofit, structured learning, no recipient choice

What unites them: democratic decision-making, community connection, values-driven giving, and the Five T's — Time, Talent, Treasure, Testimony, and Ties. These groups don't just move money. They mobilise everything a community has to offer.

Here's what struck us most: every dollar of that $3.1 billion was consumed in a single pass. Given once and gone. The group pools money, votes on a recipient, makes the grant — and then raises more money for the next round.

Sound familiar? It's the same treadmill that every community foundation knows. The same structural problem that retained deployment solves for equipment grants.

Grapevine.org, the leading digital platform for collective giving, has moved $53 million through 80,000 givers since 2020. Impressive numbers. But every dollar of that $53 million was bilateral — pooled, granted, spent, gone.

Now imagine the same movement — the same 370,000 people, the same values-driven giving, the same democratic decision-making — but with infrastructure that lets the capital compound. At an 85% recovery rate, that $3.1 billion generates $17.6 billion in cumulative community impact. The same groups. The same values. Radically different outcomes.

This research validates three things we've believed from the beginning:

1. The demand exists. 370,000 people already pool resources and give collectively. 61% joined since 2016 — the movement is accelerating. We don't need to create demand for collective giving. We need to give it better infrastructure.

2. The retention is real. 7.5-year average membership. 91% improved belonging. 87% identity transformation. These aren't metrics you manufacture. They're the natural result of giving people a meaningful way to participate in their communities.

3. The gap is structural, not cultural. People already want to give collectively. They already have the groups, the values, the commitment. What's missing is the layer that makes their capital perpetual — retained deployment, recovery cycles, compounding impact.

Elevate's Giving Circles module is built on this foundation. Not reimagining collective giving. Completing it. The same democratic process. The same community bonds. The same five T's. But with capital that keeps working — community after community, year after year — without raising another dollar.

The $30 trillion wealth transfer to women makes this urgent. 84% of collective giving is already women-led. The infrastructure they use to deploy that wealth will shape philanthropy for a generation. We intend to build it.