COMMUNITY FOUNDATION SURVEY REPORT

A Better Way To Compare And Lead

Q1 2026

Updated: 5/19/2026

The FAOG x Crewcial report draws insights from community foundations across the country, helping fuel smarter, grounded decisions, whatever your mission or endowment size.

FROM OUR DATA DESK

Welcome to the new format of the Community Foundation Survey.

Over the past year, many of you have asked for a cleaner, more flexible way to explore and share this report. We listened. Now you can view trends by peer group, more easily compare performance and allocations across time horizons, and download only the visuals you need.

It’s the same data you’ve come to rely on, just easier to work with. No PDF skimming required.

We’ve also made space for fresh insights and quick takes throughout, helping you spot shifts faster. The features we’ve prioritized reflect what we’ve consistently heard from you and your peers: make it simpler to benchmark, easier to pull what matters, and faster to turn data into action.

This is just the start. Thank you for your engagement and input, which will continue to shape what comes next.

Jay Burke

Crewcial's Director of Information Management

Longtime steward of the Community Foundation Survey

Roughly what percentage of your foundation’s equity allocation is actively managed?

A clear plurality of respondents (46%) hold 50–75% of their equity in actively managed strategies, and another 14% report more than 75%. The active/passive question, in other words, remains live for most community foundations; it has not been settled by the indexing orthodoxy that dominates the broader institutional conversation. We read that as the right instinct. The case for active management is not a claim that markets are easy to beat; it is a recognition that capitalization-weighted indices concentrate risk precisely where the crowd already is, and that the periods when discipline matters most are the periods when passive exposure offers the least protection.

The smaller passive-leaning tail (15% at 25–49%, 9% below 25%) and the combined 16% who either don't track the split or consider it not applicable point to the same underlying issue from a different angle: the active/passive decision can too often be treated as a default rather than a deliberate allocation choice. The distribution itself isn't the finding; the finding is that a structural decision with real consequences for long-term purchasing power is, for a meaningful minority, not being measured at all.

Community foundation portfolios posted modest declines in the first quarter of 2026. Across all participants, portfolios generated a −0.8% median return for the quarter, while the trailing one-year return held solidly positive at 15.2%. The quarter's character was set less by equity beta than by where that beta sat. US large-cap leadership, which had carried index returns for several years, finally cracked: the broader US market fell 3.4% as the concentration at the top of the index unwound, while non-US developed and emerging markets held up materially better (−1.2% and −0.2%). For portfolios carrying genuine non-US weight, that divergence was the difference between a mild drawdown and a more painful one; it is the same dispersion, in disguise, that reappears in the cohort data below.

Performance was relatively consistent across asset-size cohorts, with the spread driven by allocation mix rather than scale. Mid-sized foundations fared best, with the $50–99.9 million band modestly positive (+0.8%), while the largest ($500 million and over) and smallest (under $25 million) posted the steepest declines (−1.3% each). ESG pools trailed the broader group (−2.6%), consistent with their more concentrated positioning; balanced pools tracked the median (−0.8%). A macro backdrop requiring IC attention sits underneath it all: inflation reaccelerated over the quarter while investment-grade bonds were flat, taking the expected rate-cut path off the table and denying fixed income its usual cushioning role. Diversification away from US large-cap concentration (not the high-grade bond sleeve) did the defensive work this quarter. The portfolios that felt it least were the ones already positioned for a world in which US equity leadership is not a constant.

Median Performance by Strategy

The median foundation returned −0.8% in the first quarter of 2026, a shallow opening-quarter drawdown with strategy-level results ranging from −0.8% for balanced portfolios to −2.6% for ESG pools. That dispersion is the story: where Q4 rewarded equity exposure, Q1 made it more of a liability. The more public equity a portfolio carried, the more it gave back; high-equity and no-alternatives portfolios both posted −1.7%, while balanced portfolios held best at −0.8%. Investment-grade bonds were flat (rather than rallying), denying the selloff its usual flight-to-safety offset, as reaccelerating inflation kept rates from falling.

Over trailing periods the case for a deliberately constructed allocation becomes clearer, though not uniformly in alternatives' favor. The spread between alternatives-heavy and alternatives-free approaches compresses materially over ten, 15, and 20 years; that convergence is the honest argument for patient capital, and the honest limit of it. No-alternatives portfolios remained at or near the top across most trailing horizons; the most plausible read is unchanged from prior quarters. The extended period of "unicorns" staying private has muted the premium that public-only portfolios historically paid for forgoing private access. It is a condition of this cycle, not a permanent repeal of the illiquidity rationale, and ICs should weigh it as such.

Understanding the Allocation Gap Between Top and Bottom Performers

The allocation profiles of top- and bottom-decile foundations differ sharply, but in 2026 they've differed along a different axis than in prior quarters. Top-decile foundations now carry roughly 37% US large-cap and a comparatively modest 14% alternatives, while bottom-decile peers reflect less US large-cap (about 22%) but markedly heavier alternatives exposure (29%, including 17% private equity). The composition gap is real and structural; the temptation to read it as this quarter's performance explanation is what an IC should resist.

A single quarter, particularly a shallow down quarter where US large-cap led the decline, is too noisy to attribute decile separation to any one allocation choice. The durable signal is not in the specific quarter but in the broader principles of construction: decile rankings here use trailing three-year returns, and over that horizon the differentiator is less any single sleeve than whether the overall allocation was built deliberately and held through conditions that tested it. That is the read the long-horizon data supports; the quarterly composition snapshot provides context, not cause.

DOWNLOAD PREVIOUS REPORTS

2026
2025
2024
2023
DISCLOSURES

The analysis and performance information contained herein reflects that of participants of a performance survey requested by Crewcial Partners, LLC (“Crewcial Partners”), a Securities and Exchange Commission Registered Investment Advisor, and the Fiscal and Administrative Officers Group for Community Foundations (“FAOG”). Peer benchmarking provides important information for foundation boards, investment committees, staff, consultants and donors. This is the only community foundation investment performance survey that Crewcial Partners, LLC is aware of that provides timely quarter-end data across all foundation sizes. For these reasons, and to ensure representation across different portfolio sizes and strategies, participation was encouraged.

This information should not be relied upon for tax purposes and is based upon sources believed to be reliable. No guarantee is made to the completeness or accuracy of this information. Crewcial Partners shall not be responsible for any trading decisions, damages, or other losses resulting from, or related to, the information, data, analyses or opinions contained herein or their use, which do not constitute investment advice, are provided as of the date written, are provided solely for informational purposes, and therefore are not an offer to buy or sell a security. This information has not been tailored to suit any individual. Crewcial Partners does not guarantee the results of its advice or recommendations, or that the objectives of a strategy will be achieved. Portfolios offered by Crewcial Partners may not have contained and/or may not currently contain the same underlying holdings and may have been and/or may currently be managed according to rules or restrictions established by Crewcial Partners. All data presented is based on the most recent information available to Crewcial Partners as of the date indicated and may not be an accurate reflection of current data. There is no assurance that the data will remain the same.

The presentation contains performance data reported to us. Median returns reflects the approximate deduction of advisory fees, brokerage or other commissions, and any other expenses that a client would have paid. All investments involve the risk of loss, including (among other things) loss of principal, a reduction in earnings (including interest, dividends, and other distributions), and the loss of future earnings. You should consider these risks prior to investing.

Benchmark returns are used for comparative purposes only and are not intended to directly parallel the risk or investment style of the accounts included in the composite. The volatility of the indices compared herein may be materially different from that of the compared Crewcial Partners strategy. There is no guarantee that the strategies will outperform, or even match, benchmark returns over the long term.

No graph, chart, or formula in this presentation can be used in and of itself to determine which securities to buy or sell, when to buy or sell securities, whether to invest using this investment strategy, or whether to engage Crewcial Partners’s investment advisory services. Performance is calculated on a total return basis and does not include reinvestment of income. Actual fees will vary depending upon, among other things, the applicable fee schedule and portfolio size. These performance presented is based upon survey information that was provided to Crewcial Partners, LLC, and Crewcial Partners, LLC consolidated the information in to this presentation. Overall returns may be reduced by expenses that an investor may incur in the management of the investor’s account, such as for custody or trading services, which will vary by investor. Investments in securities are subject to investment risk, including possible loss of principal. Prices of securities may fluctuate from time to time and may even become valueless. Securities in this report are not FDIC-insured, may lose value, and are not guaranteed by a bank or other financial institution. Before making any investment decision, investors should read and consider all the relevant investment product information. Investors should seriously consider if the investment is suitable for them by referencing their own financial position, investment objectives, and risk profile before making any investment decision. There can be no assurance that any financial strategy will be successful.

Specializing in...

Nullam orci sem, aliquet ac convallis et, ornare vel lorem.

Example Specialty

Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Quisque hendrerit eleifend lectus, vitae pellentesque lectus molestie sit amet.

Example Specialty

Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Quisque hendrerit eleifend lectus, vitae pellentesque lectus molestie sit amet.

Example Specialty

Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Quisque hendrerit eleifend lectus, vitae pellentesque lectus molestie sit amet.