RESEARCH BRIEF

Testing three frequently repeated claims about nonprofit scale, density and charitable giving in Greater Sacramento

Prepared for public distribution by the NonProfit Podcast Network

September 2026

Executive Summary

For years, a familiar statistic has circulated in Sacramento nonprofit, business and philanthropic conversations: “Sacramento is second only to Washington, D.C.” It is usually attached to one of three claims: total nonprofits, nonprofits per capita, or charitable dollars given per capita.

This report tests each version using nationally comparable nonprofit databases, U.S. Census population estimates, IRS-derived giving data and published national comparisons. The goal is not to criticize those who have repeated it, but to replace a difficult-to-substantiate ranking with a stronger, supportable description of Sacramento’s nonprofit economy.

Findings at a glance

Bottom line: Sacramento’s nonprofit sector is genuinely large and important. The evidence does not support the “second only to D.C.” ranking in any of the three forms examined.

Why This Claim Is Harder Than It Sounds

What counts as a nonprofit? Some sources count only 501(c)(3) public charities; others include foundations, associations, unions, religious organizations and other tax-exempt categories. Counts vary with the inclusion rules.

What is “Sacramento”? The city, county, four-county region and Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom Metropolitan Statistical Area are different geographies with different populations and organization counts.

Where is an organization counted? IRS location files use the filing address, generally the organization’s headquarters, which may not reflect every community where it operates.

What does “giving” mean? Giving by residents, nonprofit revenue, foundation grants, government contracts and total nonprofit revenue are different concepts and cannot be used interchangeably.

Methodology note: IRS Exempt Organizations Business Master File guidance states that state and region are determined from filing address and generally represent an organization’s headquarters, which may not represent every place it operates.

Claim 1: “Second Only to Washington, D.C. in the Number of Nonprofits”

Verdict: Not supported.

Current Cause IQ location data, built from IRS filings and other nonprofit datasets, show that numerous metropolitan areas contain substantially more nonprofit/tax-exempt organizations than Greater Sacramento.

Source: Cause IQ, “Nonprofits by state and metro,” accessed September 2026. Values are current directory counts and can change as filings are added or cleaned.

No complete national ranking is needed to resolve the claim. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Boston each exceed Sacramento in total nonprofit/tax-exempt organizations, so Sacramento cannot be second only to Washington, D.C. in raw count.

What Sacramento can accurately say about scale

Cause IQ’s Sacramento metro profile reports more than 16,000 organizations, approximately 172,000 employees, more than $40 billion in annual revenue and about $79 billion in assets. Those figures describe the sector’s substantial economic footprint without relying on an unsupported ranking.

Claim 2: “Second Only to Washington, D.C. in Nonprofits Per Capita”

Verdict: Not supported.

This is probably the most common version. Two tests undermine it: a historical national study of locally focused nonprofits and a current metro cross-check using consistent organization counts and Census populations.

A national apples-to-apples comparison

In 2019, Governing analyzed IRS/National Center for Charitable Statistics data, removing organizations primarily national in focus or representing narrow special interests, then compared locally focused nonprofits per 10,000 residents across U.S. metros.

Source: Governing, “Where Nonprofits Are Most Prevalent in America” (2019). The study lists many additional smaller metros above Sacramento as well.

Sacramento’s 9.5 locally focused nonprofits per 10,000 residents trailed Boston, San Francisco, Washington, D.C. and many smaller metros, inconsistent with a national #2 claim.

A current broad metro cross-check

A second check combines current Cause IQ metro counts with 2025 Census metropolitan population estimates. It is not a full national ranking; it simply tests for counterexamples under one consistent broad definition.

Sources: Cause IQ metro counts; U.S. Census Bureau annual metropolitan population estimates via FRED. Rates calculated from those two sources. Because this uses Cause IQ’s broad organization definition, it should be read as a cross-check rather than a definitive national density ranking.

Boston again exceeds Sacramento under this broad current calculation. Even without evaluating every U.S. metro, Sacramento therefore cannot be second only to Washington, D.C. under this measure.

The Flourish/Zeffy visualization

A widely shared 2025 Flourish graphic visualized, rather than independently produced, a Zeffy study of the 100 most populous U.S. cities. Zeffy defines nonprofit density as registered nonprofits per 100,000 residents and identifies Orlando as highest on that metric. One sentence incorrectly labels Orlando’s “483” as per 100 residents, while the methodology states per 100,000. Because of that inconsistency, the graphic is supplementary evidence, not primary proof.

Claim 3: “Second Only to Washington, D.C. in Dollars Given Per Capita”

Verdict: Not supported.

This claim is the most ambiguous because “dollars given” can mean at least two things: charitable contributions made by residents, or revenue received by nonprofits located in the region. The available data do not place Sacramento second under either interpretation.

A. Charitable contributions reported by residents

Upgraded Points analyzed IRS 2020 individual tax-return data, including itemized charitable deductions and the temporary above-the-line deduction for many non-itemizers. Sacramento ranks well below several large metros on the published giving measures.

*Approximate per-resident figures divide the published 2020 total charitable contributions by Census Bureau 2020 metro population estimates. Sources: IRS 2020 Form 1040 data as analyzed by Upgraded Points and republished by Money Talks News; Census Bureau population estimates via FRED.

The per-resident calculation is illustrative, not a formal IRS ranking, but it is enough to test the claim. Sacramento is not close to second. San Jose and San Francisco both exceed Washington, D.C. on this calculation, showing why “D.C. is #1 and Sacramento is #2” should not be repeated without a defined metric and source.

B. Dollars flowing through nonprofits located in the region

If the intended meaning is money flowing through local nonprofits, a California benchmark points the same way. CalNonprofits’ Causes Count measured nonprofit revenue per resident for 501(c)(3) public charities filing Forms 990/990-EZ, excluding higher education and hospitals.

Source: CalNonprofits, Causes Count: The Economic Power of California’s Nonprofit Sector (2019), using IRS BMF and Form 990/990-EZ data from the 2014-2018 period; figure excludes higher education and hospitals.

This measure is not charitable giving; it is nonprofit revenue. It is included because the Sacramento phrase is sometimes repeated imprecisely as “dollars to nonprofits.” Even under that broader interpretation, Sacramento was not close to the top within California.

Where Did the “Second Only to D.C.” Phrase Come From?

No authoritative national study located in this review established Sacramento as #2 under any of the three claims. The phrase appears to have circulated locally for years, often without a citation, geography, year or definition attached.

A plausible explanation is that legitimate facts about the size of Sacramento’s nonprofit sector, including longstanding references to roughly 16,000 organizations in the broader region, gradually became compressed into a national ranking. That is an inference, not a documented origin story. Without the original study, dataset and denominator, the claim should be treated as myth rather than a verified statistic.

The important point is not that Sacramento’s nonprofit community has been overstated. It is that Sacramento does not need an unverified ranking to demonstrate its strength.

A Suggestion of Recommended Language for Future Use

For newsletters, presentations, funder conversations, media interviews and business-development discussions, use a statement that is both strong and defensible:

This language does three useful things: it celebrates the true scale of the sector, gives business and philanthropic audiences measurable economic context, and avoids relying on an unverifiable national ranking.

Research Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, none of the three frequently repeated Sacramento statements can be verified as stated. The raw-count claim is contradicted by current metro organization counts. The per-capita claim is contradicted by both a national locally focused nonprofit analysis and a current cross-check. The giving claim is contradicted by IRS-derived charitable giving measures and by California nonprofit-revenue comparisons.

It remains possible that an older, narrowly defined comparison once produced a #2 result for a specific geography, organization type, peer set or year. This review did not locate such a study. Unless that original evidence surfaces, the responsible approach is to retire the ranking and use the stronger, documented description of Greater Sacramento’s actual nonprofit economic footprint.

Even when Sacramento is defined more broadly than the four-county MSA, DMA for example, the available data do not support a national #2 ranking. Expanding the geographic footprint would also require expanding comparison markets on the same basis, which would not materially change the conclusion.

Sources and Documentation

The following sources were used to test the claims. Access dates are September 2026 unless a publication year is shown.

1. Internal Revenue Service — Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF)
Primary federal location dataset; explains that filing address generally represents headquarters and may not represent all locations of operation. Open source

2. Cause IQ — Sacramento Area Nonprofits
Current Sacramento metro organization, employment, revenue and asset figures. Open source

3. Cause IQ — Nonprofits by State and Metro
Current comparison counts across major U.S. metro areas. Open source

4. Cause IQ — Getting Started / Data Sources
Explains organization inclusion and use of IRS Form 990, 990-PF, 990-EZ and 990-N data. Open source

5. Governing — “Where Nonprofits Are Most Prevalent in America” (2019)
National metro comparison of locally focused nonprofits per 10,000 residents. Open source

6. U.S. Census Bureau population estimates via FRED — Sacramento MSA
2025 Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom metro population estimate. Open source

7. U.S. Census Bureau population estimates via FRED — Boston MSA
2025 Boston-Cambridge-Newton metro population estimate. Open source

8. U.S. Census Bureau population estimates via FRED — Washington, D.C. MSA
2025 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria metro population estimate. Open source

9. Zeffy — “Most Generous Cities in the U.S.” (2025)
Study behind the Flourish visualization; methodology uses registered nonprofits per 100,000 residents. Open source

10. Upgraded Points — “The Most Charitable American Cities and States” (2023)
Analysis of IRS 2020 individual income tax return charitable contribution data. Open source

11. Money Talks News — “The 15 Most Charitable Places in America” (2023)
Republishes metro figures from the Upgraded Points IRS analysis, including Sacramento, D.C., San Francisco, San Jose and Boston. Open source

12. CalNonprofits — Causes Count: The Economic Power of California’s Nonprofit Sector (2019)
County nonprofit revenue-per-resident comparison based on IRS BMF and Form 990/990-EZ data. Open source

Important limitations

·       Nonprofit databases are dynamic. Organization counts change as new filings, revocations and data-cleaning updates are incorporated.

·       Geographic comparisons depend on consistent boundaries. City, county, metro and multi-county regional figures should not be mixed.

·       The Cause IQ current-count comparison is broader than the Governing “locally focused nonprofit” analysis; the two are used for different purposes and are not combined into a single ranking.

·       IRS tax-return giving data measure contributions reported by residents of a geography. They do not prove that those dollars were donated to organizations located in that same geography.

·       Per-resident charitable giving calculations in this report are derived from published total giving and Census metro population estimates and are presented as a transparent cross-check, not as an official IRS ranking.

The NonProfit Podcast Network
Research brief prepared for public education and nonprofit-sector discussion.