The US Capital Map
Nearly half of America’s charities are bankable — and locked out of capital.
We sorted every US public charity that files a full tax return — 283,771 of them — by two plain tests: can it repay a loan, and is there a profit an investor could take? 48.6% pass the first but fail the second. They could put capital to work, but earn too little market income to attract a loan or an investor — so the only money they get is a grant, spent once. This is the map of that gap in the United States.
- Charities mapped
- 284k
- Bankable · non-commercial
- 48.6%
- Could recycle, not be spent once
- ~128k
- Reconciled to IRS SOI
- ±3.7%
Where America’s charities actually sit
Every US public charity placed by whether it could repay (across) and whether it earns a market return (up). The mass sits in the bottom-right: able to carry capital, but funded by contributions rather than earned income — the exact corner banks and investors leave alone.
Every US 501(c)(3) filing a full Form 990 (283,771, 2012–2023), binned by bankability × commerciality. Darker = denser. The mass sits bottom-right.
The four quadrants, by the numbers
Default 50/50 cutoff. Neutral, axis-derived labels; the share holds across 40/50/60 thresholds.
| Quadrant | % of charities | % of sector $ |
|---|---|---|
| Bankable · non-commercialbottom-right | 48.6% | 20.3% |
| Bankable · self-fundingtop-right | 23.6% | 67% |
| Fragile · non-commercialbottom-left | 17.8% | 3.5% |
| Fragile · tradingtop-left | 10% | 9.2% |
How the US compares to Australia
We ran the same two tests on Australia’s 44,196 charities. The exiled corner is the largest by entity count in both countries — the pattern isn’t an American quirk. The dollars differ: US hospitals and universities bill for services (so they read as commercial and hold most revenue), while their Australian counterparts are government-grant funded. Same kinds of organisations, different funding plumbing — so the fair comparison is the share of organisations, not of dollars.
| Quadrant | 🇺🇸 % ent | 🇦🇺 % ent |
|---|---|---|
| Bankable · non-commercial | 48.6% | 52.6% |
| Bankable · self-funding | 23.6% | 19.6% |
| Fragile · non-commercial | 17.8% | 19.9% |
| Fragile · trading | 10% | 7.9% |
One honest limit of the US data
IRS Form 990, as harmonised in NCCS Core, reports only total contributions — it bundles private donations and government grants (a sector aggregate of $305B of $756B in 2022, per the IRS). Government funding can’t be separated at the organisation level, so unlike Australia we can’t isolate the donation-only subset. The portable cross-country result is therefore the quadrant distribution above, which needs no such split — not the finer donation-only “heartland” figure.
Frequently asked
What share of US public charities are bankable but non-commercial?
About 48.6% of the 283,771 classified full-990 501(c)(3) public charities are bankable (able to service a scheduled claim) yet non-commercial (little market-facing earned income) — the same "exiled" cell that dominates the Australian sector (52.6%).
How does the US compare to Australia?
The exiled cell is the largest by entity count in both countries (US 48.6%, AU 52.6%). The revenue split differs: in the US the bankable, self-funding cell holds 67% of dollars because large US hospitals and universities bill for services, whereas their Australian counterparts are government-grant funded.
How was this measured?
We classified 283,771 US 501(c)(3) organisations filing a full Form 990 (2012–2023, NCCS Core) on bankability (surplus consistency, margin, asset backing, revenue stability) and commerciality (program-service earned income). Sector revenue reconciles to IRS SOI Table 1 to within 3.7% (2021) and 1.4% (2022) — the two years SOI has released.
Why can't you isolate donation-funded charities in the US?
IRS Form 990 as harmonised in NCCS Core reports only total contributions (Part VIII line 1h), which bundle private donations and government grants. Government grants cannot be separated at the organisation level, so — unlike Australia — the donation-only subset can't be isolated. The comparable cross-country figure is the quadrant distribution, which needs no such split.
Methodology & citation
Every US 501(c)(3) filing a full Form 990 in 2012–2023 (NCCS Core panel) was scored on bankability (surplus consistency, surplus margin, asset backing, revenue stability) and commerciality (program-service earned income, a proxy for extractability, which is structurally near zero for a non-distributing sector) — using the identical construction, weights and cutoffs as the Australian map. Sector revenue reconciles to IRS SOI Table 1 to within 3.7% (2021) and 1.4% (2022) — the two years SOI has released.
Full method, code and per-year reconciliation to IRS Statistics of Income: analysis/capital-map-us. Companion working paper: Bankable and Extractable: A Two-Axis Map of Capital Exclusion (Ghadamian, IRSA Institute).
Cite as: Elevate / IRSA Institute, The US Capital Map, https://www.elevate.gift/capital-map/usa.
The gap is structural, and it’s everywhere
In both countries most charitable organisations can carry capital but are offered only grants, spent once. Recoverable grants recycle: a dollar at recovery R does 1/(1−R) of cumulative work. See the Australian map, or how recyclable capital works.