Other Grantmaking and Giving Services (NAICS 813219): An Investor's Primer

1. Overview

NAICS 813219 — "Other Grantmaking and Giving Services" — is the part of the U.S. philanthropic system built around federated fundraisers: charitable intermediaries that raise money from the public and pass it along to other nonprofits doing the frontline work. (NAICS is the North American Industry Classification System, the federal scheme for grouping businesses.) The archetype is the local United Way, but the code also covers community chests, workplace-giving federations, united funds for colleges, and Jewish and other community federations.[1] These are pooled-giving intermediaries: instead of dozens of charities each running a separate workplace payroll-deduction drive, one federation runs a single campaign and allocates the proceeds.

Why would an investor care about a set of tax-exempt charities? Two reasons. First, this is the plumbing of a giving economy that topped $600 billion for the first time in 2025 — knowing how it works tells you where donation dollars pool and flow, which matters for anyone in wealth management, fintech payments, or nonprofit software.[6] Second, while you cannot buy equity in the charities themselves (they have no owners), a real, investable for-profit layer sits on top of them: fundraising software, payment rails, and — most importantly — the asset managers that run commercial donor-advised funds and collect fees on hundreds of billions of charitable dollars.

• Public-market way in: the infrastructure and asset-management layer — nonprofit-software vendor Blackbaud, and financial firms such as Charles Schwab and PayPal whose affiliated charities run large giving vehicles.
• Private way in: private equity has consolidated the fundraising-technology stack (Bonterra, GoFundMe/Classy, Benevity, Bloomerang). The federations and fund sponsors themselves are nonprofits and are not investable as equity.

This primer is written for both public-market and private investors. Note upfront that standard business metrics (profit margins, valuation multiples) do not apply to the core industry — the money mechanics here are about dollars raised, the cost to raise them, and how much reaches programs (Section 5). And the central analytical trap: charitable dollars moving through a platform are not the platform's revenue. A company that processes a billion dollars of donations may recognize only software fees on it — separate the funds flow from the income statement.

2. What it is and how it's structured

Official scope. The Census Bureau defines 813219 as establishments (except voluntary health organizations) "primarily engaged in raising funds for a wide range of social welfare activities, such as educational, scientific, cultural, and health," including those that solicit contributions on their own account and then administer and allocate the funds among other social-welfare agencies.[1] The illustrative examples Census lists are community chests, united fund councils, federated charities, and united funds for colleges.[1]

Four overlapping models. In practice the giving-intermediary space this primer covers spans four models, only the first of which is the definitional core of 813219:

1. Federated fundraising (the core of 813219): community chests and United Way-style networks raise from individuals, employers and corporations, keep a small administrative share, and re-grant the rest to member or partner charities.
2. Donor-advised funds (DAFs): a donor irrevocably contributes assets to a public-charity sponsor, takes an immediate tax deduction, and recommends grants over time; the sponsor keeps legal control of the assets.[15]
3. Foundations and community philanthropy: private and community foundations endow assets and grant according to donor, board or community priorities.
4. Fundraising infrastructure: software, payment processors, donor databases and grant-management platforms that service the ecosystem — mostly for-profit, and mostly classified under adjacent codes.

Ownership mix. The operating entities are almost entirely nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) public charities — "(c)(3)" being the Internal Revenue Code section granting income-tax exemption and deductible-donation status. There are no shareholders, no equity and no dividends; control sits with volunteer boards and trustees, not owners. In this industry, "private" usually means privately governed nonprofit, not privately held company. This is the single most important structural fact for an investor: you cannot own a piece of the operating charities.

What it EXCLUDES (adjacent NAICS codes). The boundaries are fine and they matter for reading the statistics:

• 813211 Grantmaking Foundations — private foundations and charitable trusts (e.g., Gates, Ford), and most community foundations and commercial DAF sponsors, which endow-and-grant rather than run public campaigns.[1] This is where the largest giving intermediaries land — the key to the undercount in Section 3.
• 813212 Voluntary Health Organizations — charities raising for disease research and health causes (American Cancer Society, March of Dimes).[1]
• 561499 All Other Business Support Services — for-profit firms that run fundraising campaigns on contract or for a fee.[1]
• 561422 Telemarketing Bureaus — outsourced phone solicitation.[1]
• 813940 Political Organizations and 81331 Social Advocacy Organizations — political and cause fundraising.[1]
• 8131 Religious Organizations — congregational giving, the single largest slice of U.S. donations, is a separate industry.

3. How big it is

Per U.S. federal statistics for NAICS 813219 (figures span different reference years; do not read them as one income statement):

(SBA = Small Business Administration.) At roughly $21.8 billion in receipts across ~4,300 firms, average revenue is about $5 million per firm — but that average is heavily skewed. A handful of large networks dominate the top, and the long tail is small, often near-volunteer-run community federations.

The undercount caveat — read this before using the $21.8 billion figure. The federal number measures formal employer activity in the federated-fundraising slice, and materially understates total organized giving for four reasons:

1. Classification leakage. The country's largest giving intermediaries — commercial DAF sponsors (Fidelity Charitable, Schwab's DAFgiving360) and community foundations — are generally classified under 813211 (foundations), not 813219. So the biggest pooled-giving vehicles sit outside this code.
2. Pass-through accounting. Because federations move money to other charities, "receipts" can double-count within the sector or exclude designated gifts, depending on treatment — the figure is not a clean measure of dollars mobilized.
3. Employer-only coverage. County Business Patterns counts only establishments with paid employees; small community giving circles and all-volunteer federations fall below that threshold. Census Nonemployer Statistics cover a narrower set of businesses without payroll and do not fully close the gap.[2]
4. Government grantmaking is out of scope — direct public-sector giving is not a private-sector NAICS activity at all.

For scale context outside the code: the United Way network alone reported roughly $5.2 billion in combined revenue at its recent peak[12] — about a quarter of the entire measured industry in one brand. And the DAF market that mostly sits in 813211 held on the order of $250–330 billion in assets in recent years (Section 6). Meanwhile Giving USA put total U.S. charitable giving at $592.5 billion in 2024, rising to $617.2 billion in 2025 — the first year above $600 billion.[5][6] That is the entire charitable system, not this industry's receipts, and should never be substituted for the $21.8 billion. Treat the federal figure as a floor for one federation segment, not the size of American organized giving.

4. The investable universe

There is no pure-play public or private "federated fundraiser" to own. United Way, Jewish Federations, community chests and the DAF sponsors are nonprofits with no equity. Investors gain exposure only through the for-profit infrastructure and asset-management layer that services this world.

Public companies

Blackbaud is the closest thing to a listed sector bet: recurring-revenue software selling to exactly these organizations, in a market it describes as competitive and fragmented.[14] It has also been a repeat take-private target — Clearlake Capital, already a large shareholder, has been reported to bid on the order of $80 per share (~$4.3 billion).[14] (CRM = customer relationship management.)

Major private and nonprofit reference points

These matter for understanding the market but mostly have no equity owners — value them on governance, asset quality, donor retention, payout and mission credibility, not on multiples:

• Fidelity Charitable — independent public charity tied to privately held Fidelity Investments; the largest U.S. commercial DAF sponsor. Donors recommended $14.9 billion in grants in 2024.[9]
• DAFgiving360 (Schwab-affiliated) — independent public charity; donors granted more than $7.7 billion in 2024.[10]
• Vanguard Charitable — independent 501(c)(3) DAF sponsor founded by Vanguard.[11]
• National Philanthropic Trust — independent national DAF sponsor and private-label provider for banks, wealth managers and family offices; $5.62 billion of grants in fiscal 2024.[7]
• United Way — a federated network of ~1,800 locally governed U.S. affiliates, not a single corporate owner.[12]
• Jewish Federations — roughly 141 federations running annual community campaigns.[13]
• Tides and community foundations — geographic and mission-specific platforms administering DAFs, fiscal sponsorships and collective funds.[25]
• GoFundMe / Classy — privately held; GoFundMe acquired Classy and markets nonprofit tools under GoFundMe Pro.[22]
• Benevity — Hg-backed corporate-purpose software (employee giving, volunteering, grants).[23]
• Bonterra — Apax-backed social-impact platform built by acquisition (Network for Good, CyberGrants, EveryAction).[21]
• Bloomerang, Daffy — donor-management software and DAF fintech (PE/VC-backed).

Two things to note. First, the commercial DAF sponsors are legally independent nonprofits — Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard do not own the charitable assets. Their equity value comes from the fee stream the affiliated asset manager collects for investing those assets, plus the client relationships DAFs create. Second, consolidation is far more active in the software/infrastructure layer than among the charities.

5. How the money works

Because the operators are nonprofits, forget profit margins for the core industry. The economics run on levers specific to each model:

For the federated core, four levers matter:

1. Dollars raised (the top line). A federation's "revenue" is essentially its campaign total. The historical workhorse was employer payroll deduction — automatic small gifts from paychecks during an annual workplace campaign — the single most important and most threatened channel (Section 9).
2. The administrative share. A federation keeps a slice of what passes through — typically a low-double-digit percentage — then re-grants the rest. The constant pressure is to keep this low.
3. Fundraising efficiency and the program-expense ratio. What donors and watchdogs actually judge: cost to raise a dollar (cents spent per dollar raised) and the program-expense ratio (share of spending reaching programs vs. overhead and fundraising). Rating agencies generally want roughly 65%+ going to programs. This is the nonprofit analog of a margin.
4. Endowment and float — and where the investable money is. Larger federations and foundations hold investment portfolios. For DAFs this is the whole game: the donor deducts immediately, the money sits invested — sometimes for years — before being granted out, and during that interval the affiliated asset manager earns a management fee on the assets under management (AUM). That "float" between donation and grant is how a public company (Schwab) monetizes a charitable vehicle. Crucially, DAFs have no federal minimum payout; the aggregate payout rate ran about 25% in fiscal 2024.[8] Private foundations, by contrast, face a ~5% minimum distribution rule.[16]

The through-line: in the traditional federation, success is efficiency (cheap dollars, high program ratio); in the DAF-sponsor model, success is AUM and fee capture — a genuine, investable revenue stream. Either way, gross donation volume is not company revenue.

6. What drives demand

Giving is broadly based but procyclical and tax-sensitive:

• Household income and wealth. Individuals gave about $392 billion in 2024 — roughly two-thirds of all U.S. giving — with foundations $109.8 billion, bequests $45.8 billion and corporations $44.4 billion. Total giving rose 6.3% in current dollars (3.3% after inflation) in 2024 and again in 2025.[5][6] Consumer and market conditions dominate the top line.
• Financial markets. Appreciated securities are a major DAF and foundation funding source; strong markets lift the value of charitable assets and make noncash giving more attractive.
• DAF adoption. In fiscal 2024, donor-advised funds held roughly $250–330 billion in assets (estimates vary by data source and sample), received $60–90 billion in contributions, distributed $55–65 billion in grants, and spanned about 3.6 million accounts across ~1,500 sponsors.[7][8]
• Corporate giving. Employers increasingly run matching gifts, employee donations, volunteering and corporate grants through software.
• Digital fundraising. Mobile, peer-to-peer, online events and integrated payments cut friction and widen reach.
• Crises and disasters. Emergencies spike relief giving — Jewish Federations, for instance, raised about $3 billion in 2024, ~$1 billion above normal, driven by an Israel emergency campaign.[13]
• Wealth transfer. Estate planning and the sale of privately held businesses feed DAFs, foundations and complex-asset administration.
• Donor trust and transparency. Ratings, scandals and overhead perceptions move dollars between intermediaries.

The industry is resilient but not immune to cycles. Donors often keep granting from existing charitable accounts during downturns even as new money slows — in 2023, DAF contributions fell 21.7% while grants dipped just 1.4% and assets rose 9.9%.[7]

7. Regulation

The core industry is regulated as tax-exempt charity, not as a business. (IRS = Internal Revenue Service.)

• Federal (IRS) status. Organizations qualify under Section 501(c)(3) and must pass a public-support test to be treated as public charities rather than private foundations. Public charities file Form 990 (or 990-EZ / 990-N); private foundations file Form 990-PF — the primary public financial disclosures for donors and analysts.[15][17]
• Donor-advised-fund rules. The sponsor must retain legal control; the IRS can disallow deductions or impose excise taxes on abusive arrangements, impermissible benefits or improper distributions. DAFs have no minimum payout.[15]
• Private-foundation rules. A ~5% minimum-distribution requirement plus self-dealing, excess-business-holding and jeopardizing-investment restrictions.[16]
• State charitable-solicitation registration. About 41 states plus the District of Columbia require registration before soliciting residents, with periodic financial reporting; multi-state compliance commonly runs $3,000–$10,000 a year for a smaller organization, and state attorneys general are the front-line enforcers against charity fraud.[18]
• Payments and data (for the software layer). Commercial platforms must manage card security, fraud, sanctions screening and nonprofit verification; Blackbaud cites PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard) compliance as an operating requirement.[14]
• The charitable deduction is changing. Under the 2025 tax law (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, OBBBA), starting in 2026 non-itemizers can deduct up to $1,000 (single) / $2,000 (joint) in cash gifts — but not gifts to DAFs — while itemizers face a new 0.5%-of-AGI floor (only giving above that share of adjusted gross income is deductible).[19] The net effect is contested: a new incentive for everyday donors, a modest disincentive for large itemized gifts, and a carve-out that disadvantages DAFs.
• Private watchdogs act as quasi-regulators of reputation: Charity Navigator, the BBB Wise Giving Alliance (Give.org), CharityWatch and Candid (GuideStar).

8. Competitive dynamics and consolidation

This is one of the least concentrated industries you will find. Federal figures put the four-firm concentration ratio (share of receipts held by the largest four firms) at just 17.4%, the top eight at 24.6%, the top 20 at 37.1%, the top 50 at 51%, and the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index — a standard concentration gauge where 10,000 is a monopoly — at a very low 128.7.[3] Read these cautiously: they exclude the large DAF and software businesses that sit in adjacent codes.

The competitive story is disintermediation and channel shift:

• Traditional federations are losing share. United Way's slice of U.S. giving fell from about 3.2% to under 2% across the 1990s as the nonprofit universe exploded and donors gained direct alternatives.[12] Workplace-only United Way campaigns had already dropped to about a quarter of companies by 2009.[20]
• Donors want to choose. "Donor-designation" (earmarking a workplace gift to a specific charity) and, more radically, direct online giving and DAFs let donors bypass the federation's allocation role entirely.
• Commercial DAF sponsors are the rising intermediary. Fidelity Charitable, DAFgiving360, Vanguard Charitable and National Philanthropic Trust have grown into some of the largest grant-makers in the country — capturing the pooled-giving function federations once monopolized, but with asset-manager economics attached.[7][9]
• Where the moats are. Basic fundraising tools have low entry barriers, but mature nonprofit systems carry high switching costs — donor histories, accounting and grant records, compliance workflows and integrations. Competition turns on donor trust and brand, access to wealth managers and employers, ability to accept complex/appreciated assets, and disbursement speed and fraud controls.[14]
• Consolidation runs through the infrastructure layer. Charities merge or share services (many local United Ways have combined to cut overhead), while private software owners build scale through M&A (mergers and acquisitions) — GoFundMe/Classy, Apax-backed Bonterra, Hg-backed Benevity.[21][22][23]

9. Risks

• Structural decline of workplace giving. The payroll-deduction model erodes with gig, non-union and remote work and falling employer sponsorship — a slow secular headwind for the core industry.[20]
• Disintermediation. Every year it gets easier to give directly (online, crowdfunding) or via a DAF, squeezing the "we allocate for you" value proposition.
• Market and income cyclicality. New contributions track household wealth, corporate profits and asset prices; grants are steadier but eventually follow. For DAF sponsors, a downturn hits both contributions and fee-earning AUM.[5]
• Tax-policy risk. Fewer itemizers since the 2017 standard-deduction increase already blunted the incentive for most households; the 2026 AGI floor and DAF carve-out add uncertainty.[19]
• Reputation and fraud. Trust is the product. Overhead controversies and scandals (the 1990s United Way of America leadership scandal is the classic case) can crater giving fast.
• Donor and revenue concentration. As broad campaigns fade, some federations lean on a few large gifts or crisis spikes — lumpier, less predictable revenue.[13]
• Cybersecurity (software layer). The sector holds sensitive donor and payment data; Blackbaud's 2020 breach and resulting settlements are the cautionary tale.[14]
• Government-funding exposure. Nonprofit customers that depend on public grants may cut software spending when programs are cut or delayed.
• Measurement risk. Industry receipts are not charitable flows, and public statistics omit government, volunteer and tiny-operator activity — easy to over- or under-state the market.
• Liquidity/valuation (private). Private software companies may depend on future financings or exits; nonprofit assets may be restricted, illiquid or unsuitable for short-term spending.

10. How to invest and the outlook

You cannot invest in the industry directly — its firms are nonprofits with no equity. Exposure comes through the layers around it, and the underwriting should center on company-wide recurring revenue, retention, payment economics, margins, cash flow and cybersecurity — not the amount of money granted to charities.

Public-market routes:

• Nonprofit software — Blackbaud (NASDAQ: BLKB). The clearest listed proxy: recurring-revenue software selling to exactly these organizations, and a repeat take-private target (~$80/share, ~$4.3 billion, reported from Clearlake).[14] The thesis is "sell picks and shovels to the giving economy."
• DAF-linked financial firms — Charles Schwab (NYSE: SCHW). You are not buying the charity; you are buying a broker/asset manager whose affiliate earns fees on charitable assets parked in its DAF sponsor — a small but sticky, growing slice of a much larger franchise.[10]
• Payment rails — PayPal (NASDAQ: PYPL) and other processors that carry donation volume.[24]

Private routes (a well-trodden PE/VC theme):

• Vertical software for fundraising, donor management and grant administration
• Corporate-giving and employee-matching platforms
• Donation-processing, nonprofit-verification and payment-security infrastructure
• Private-label DAF administration and DAF fintech (Daffy)
• Acquisition platforms with strong retention and low disbursement costs — Bonterra (Apax), GoFundMe/Classy, Benevity (Hg), Bloomerang.[21][22][23]

For direct philanthropic or mission-related investing, there is no share price, dividend or conventional exit — review Form 990/990-PF filings, asset restrictions, payout policy, liquidity, donor concentration, governance, operating reserves and measurable grant outcomes.

Near-term drivers to watch:

• The 2025 tax law's 2026 effects. The new non-itemizer deduction could lift broad-based giving; the itemizer floor and DAF exclusion could dampen large and DAF-routed gifts. Expect a 2025 "bunching" pull-forward as donors accelerate gifts before the floor bites.[19]
• Market levels. Because giving and DAF AUM track equities, a strong market is a tailwind for grant volume and sponsor fees; a correction is the main downside.[5][6]
• The DAF-vs-federation share shift. The long migration of pooled giving from traditional federations to commercial DAF sponsors is the defining structural trend — a headwind for legacy nonprofits, a tailwind for the fee-earning asset managers attached to DAFs.[7][8]

Bottom line (forward-looking judgment). The charities in NAICS 813219 face a slow secular squeeze — declining workplace giving and disintermediation — that consolidation only partly offsets. The investable exposure is better: the software and DAF-fee layers that service the giving economy are growing, consolidating, and — in Blackbaud's case — repeatedly bid for. Treat this less as a charity sector you can buy into and more as a fintech and asset-management infrastructure theme wearing charitable clothing — where the winning businesses convert trust, compliance and specialized workflow into recurring revenue without confusing charitable funds flow with company revenue.

---

Sources

1. U.S. Census Bureau / NAICS, "NAICS Code 813219 — Other Grantmaking and Giving Services: definition, illustrative examples, and cross-references," 2022. https://www.census.gov/naics/?details=813219&input=813219&year=2022
2. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2023, NAICS 813219 — establishments (5,018), employment (41,324), annual payroll ($2.66B), first-quarter payroll ($635.2M); Nonemployer Statistics coverage note. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html
3. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census — NAICS 813219: firms (4,257), receipts ($21.8B), concentration ratios (CR4 17.4%, CR8 24.6%, CR20 37.1%, CR50 51%) and HHI (128.7). https://data.census.gov/table/ECNSIZE2022.EC2200SIZECONCEN?y=2022
4. U.S. Small Business Administration, "Table of Small Business Size Standards" (NAICS 813219 = $47M in average annual receipts), 2023. https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards
5. Giving USA Foundation & Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, "Giving USA 2025: U.S. charitable giving grew to $592.50 billion in 2024" (individuals $392.45B; foundations $109.81B; bequests $45.84B; corporations $44.40B; +6.3% nominal / +3.3% real), 2025. https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2025-u-s-charitable-giving-grew-to-592-50-billion-in-2024-lifted-by-stock-market-gains/
6. Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, "Giving USA: U.S. charitable giving rose to $617.20 billion in 2025, surpassing $600 billion for the first time," 2026. https://philanthropy.indianapolis.iu.edu/
7. National Philanthropic Trust, "The Donor-Advised Fund Report" and 2024 Annual Report (DAF assets and grants series; NPT's own grants $5.62B in FY2024; 2023: contributions −21.7%, grants −1.4%, assets +9.9%). https://www.nptrust.org/reports/donor-advised-fund-report/
8. Donor Advised Fund Research Collaborative, "Annual DAF Report" (FY2024: ~$327.9B assets, ~$90.6B contributions, ~$64.6B grants, 3.59M accounts, 1,512 sponsors, 25.2% payout rate). https://www.dafresearchcollaborative.org/research/annual-daf-report
9. Fidelity Charitable, "2024 Giving Report" (donors recommended $14.9B in grants in 2024), 2025. https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/insights/2025-giving-report.html
10. DAFgiving360 (formerly Schwab Charitable), "DAFgiving360 Donors Grant $7.7 Billion to Charity in 2024" and "What the One Big Beautiful Bill Act means for charitable giving," 2025. https://www.dafgiving360.org/
11. Vanguard Charitable, "About Us," 2026. https://www.vanguardcharitable.org/about-us
12. Wikipedia / United Way Worldwide, "United Way" (network revenue ~$5.2B at 2021 peak; ~1,800 U.S. affiliates; market-share decline from ~3.2% to under 2% across the 1990s). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Way
13. The Jewish Federations of North America, "Amid War, Jewish Federation Giving Rose $1 Billion in 2024" (~$3B raised; ~141 federations), 2025. https://www.jewishfederations.org/
14. Blackbaud, Inc., 2025 Form 10-K and The NonProfit Times, "Investor Makes $4.3 Billion Bid to Take Blackbaud Private" (recurring revenue ~$1.1B, ~98% recurring; Clearlake ~$80/share bid; competitive/fragmented market; PCI DSS; 2020 data breach). https://thenonprofittimes.com/npt_articles/investor-makes-4-3-billion-bid-to-take-blackbaud-private/
15. Internal Revenue Service, "Donor-Advised Funds," 2026. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/donor-advised-funds
16. Internal Revenue Service, "Private Foundations" and "Minimum Investment Return" (~5% payout, self-dealing and excess-business-holding rules), 2026. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/private-foundations
17. Internal Revenue Service, "Exempt Organization Types" and "Instructions for Form 990" (public-support test; 990 / 990-EZ / 990-N / 990-PF), 2026. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organization-types
18. National Council of Nonprofits / IRS, "Charitable Solicitation Registration" (41 states + DC require registration; $3,000–$10,000 multi-state compliance cost), 2026. https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/fundraising-and-resource-development/charitable-solicitation-registration
19. Tax Foundation, "Changes to Charitable Giving Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (2026 non-itemizer deduction $1,000/$2,000 excluding DAFs; 0.5%-of-AGI itemizer floor), 2025. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/charitable-deduction-big-beautiful-bill/
20. Nonprofit Quarterly, "The Changing Face of Workplace Giving" (decline of payroll-deduction federated giving; ~25% of companies ran United Way-only campaigns by 2009), 2024. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/
21. Apax Partners, "How Apax Funds Created a Leader in Social Good Software" (Bonterra: Network for Good, CyberGrants, EveryAction), 2026. https://www.apax.com/news-views/how-apax-backed-tech-provider-is-transforming-charitable-giving/
22. GoFundMe, "GoFundMe to Acquire Classy" (now marketed as GoFundMe Pro), 2022. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220113005248/en/GoFundMe-to-Acquire-Classy
23. Benevity, "About Us" (Hg-backed corporate-purpose software), 2026. https://benevity.com/about-us
24. PayPal Giving Fund, "About Us" (independent 501(c)(3); PayPal sole member), 2026. https://www.paypal.com/us/paypal-giving-fund/about
25. Tides, "Frequently Asked Questions" (DAFs, fiscal sponsorship, collective funds), 2025. https://www.tides.org/faqs/