When a funder's stated priorities don't match their 990 giving history
When a foundation’s website lists your cause as a priority but its 990 shows little or no giving there, believe the 990. Stated priorities are intentions. The tax filing is the record of where money actually went. The gap is not automatically disqualifying, but it changes your approach, and reading it correctly saves a wasted cultivation cycle.
Why the two disagree
A foundation’s public priorities and its actual giving diverge for ordinary reasons. Boards change direction faster than websites get updated. “Areas of interest” are often aspirational, or a legacy of a founder’s wishes, while the check-writing follows established grantees. Sometimes the language is deliberately broad to avoid discouraging applicants. None of that is bad faith. The website is marketing; the 990 is accounting.
The grants schedule of the filing (Form 990-PF for private foundations) lists actual grants: who got money, how much, and often for what. Pull filings free on ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer, work through them on-site at a Candid partner library, or use Instrumentl, which shows giving history beside each funder’s stated program. That is exactly the comparison to make before investing proposal hours, and Instrumentl’s 14-day free trial is enough time to run it across your full prospect list. Our Instrumentl review covers the rest of the tool.
How to read the gap
Sort the divergence into three cases.
-
Priority listed, zero giving. Treat the stated priority as unproven. Either they have not funded it yet (a possible opening) or the language is decorative (a dead end). Recency is the tie-breaker: a newly announced program deserves more benefit of the doubt than five-year-old language with five years of contrary giving. Board composition matters too, because new trustees move money before they move websites.
-
Priority listed, giving concentrated in a few repeat grantees. The interest is real but the door is relationship-gated. Many foundations fund almost exclusively organizations they already know, and some say outright that they do not accept unsolicited proposals. Your path in is a warm introduction (a board member, a shared funder, a peer ED), not a cold letter of inquiry.
-
Giving in an area not prominently listed. The most useful discovery in prospect work. The 990 reveals an interest the website undersells. That is often your least competitive opening, because everyone else is reading the website.
What to do with the read
Match effort to evidence. A funder whose last three 990s confirm real, recent, open-door giving in your area earns a full proposal. A funder whose giving contradicts its stated priorities earns a note in your CRM and nothing more until something changes: a new program officer, a new strategic plan, a warm connection surfacing. Most wasted grant effort goes to funders whose websites said yes while their checkbooks had been saying no for years.
Reading the 990 first puts limited proposal hours where the money has actually been going. Twenty minutes of filing time against a week of writing time is the best trade in grant work.
This piece is part of the guide to the $1M-$5M fundraising stack, where grant research becomes a program rather than a side task.
Common questions
Which should I trust: a funder's website or their 990?
The 990. Stated priorities describe intent; the 990 records where the money actually went. When they conflict, the giving history is the stronger signal, but read the gap for what it tells you rather than dismissing the funder outright.
How many years of 990s should I look at?
At least three. One year can be an anomaly: a leadership transition, a one-time capital gift. A three-year pattern separates a real funding priority from a one-off.
Where do I find a foundation's 990 for free?
ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer has searchable 990s at no cost, and Candid's Foundation Directory is free to use on-site at hundreds of partner libraries.
This post is part of the guide to the established fundraising stack ($1M – $5M raised).