Drawing on financial and organisational survey data from over 300 philanthropic organisations, this study assesses the scope and characteristics of large-scale domestic philanthropy in Mexico and compares it with cross-border philanthropic flows and official development assistance (ODA) to Mexico for the period 2020‑23.
Mexico’s domestic philanthropic sector has grown substantially in recent decades. Between 2020 and 2023, the 328 largest domestic organisations disbursed USD 3.4 billion, far exceeding the USD 274 million provided by 27 cross‑border donors and the USD 3.16 billion from Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members. The top 10 domestic funders accounted for nearly half of total domestic funding, with Fundación Carlos Slim alone disbursing over USD 670 million, underscoring the concentration of resources.
These three funding sources show patterns of complementarity but also fragmentation. Domestic philanthropy concentrated over 70% of its funding on social services, with limited reach in sectors like water and sanitation. International philanthropy focused largely on government and civil society, which received USD 108.3 million, while education received USD 46.8 million, environmental protection USD 33.5 million and other social infrastructure and services USD 17.4 million. ODA provided the broadest sectoral coverage, spanning environmental protection, banking and financial services, government and civil society, energy and education. While all three funding sources support development, better co‑ordination would reduce fragmentation and help address sectoral gaps.
Geographically, domestic philanthropic funding remains highly concentrated in urban and economically developed regions: Mexico City received USD 780 million during 2020‑23, more than any other state, followed by Nuevo León. Per capita, Mexico City received almost USD 90, far exceeding the national average (USD 14). In contrast, states with higher poverty incidence received comparatively little support.
Philanthropic organisations surveyed also present significant diversity in their structures and strategies. Around 60% are medium-sized (10-99 staff), 10 reported more than 100 employees, and two employ over 500. Most foundations (85%) were established in the 1990s or later. A notable exception is Fundación Nacional Monte de Piedad, founded in 1775.
Domestic foundations primarily target young people and those in acute poverty. Two-thirds support youth and over half focus on poverty-related initiatives. Older people, indigenous populations and gender-specific programmes receive less funding. Gender equality is rarely a stated focus, with only one-third explicitly targeting women and girls.
Most surveyed foundations collaborate with other philanthropic or civil society actors. Over half co-financed at least one project between 2016 and 2022. However, one-third face difficulties in finding partners with shared goals and cite high transaction costs as a barrier.
Engagement with government remains limited. Over two-thirds reported little or no collaboration with public institutions. Respondents noted that reducing bureaucratic barriers and improving transparency would strengthen co-operation. A recent open letter signed by over 1 500 foundations in October 2024 expressing interest in working with the incoming federal administration signals a potential shift toward more constructive engagement.
Transparency practices vary widely across respondents. Most foundations publish general information such as annual reports, fewer disclose audited financial data, and six reported not sharing information with the public. In parallel, two-thirds of respondents regularly evaluate their programmes, but impact or cost-effectiveness assessments are rare, especially for smaller organisations. Most foundations (50%) reported being negatively affected by recent policy reforms. Changes to tax law since 2018 restricted eligibility for issuing tax-deductible receipts and increased compliance requirements. By 2023, fewer than a quarter of charitable organisations had “authorised donee” status, granted by the Mexican Tax Administration (SAT). The elimination of public funding programmes such as the Social Co-Investment Programme and INDESOL also weakened institutional support.
During the COVID-19 pandemic about 30% of foundations temporarily redirected funding to emergency programmes or reduced operations but most have since resumed pre-pandemic strategies.
Based on these results, this report makes the following recommendations.
For the government:
Establish a clear national legal framework for philanthropy. A unified definition and legal category would simplify oversight and improve the visibility and traceability of philanthropic contributions.
Reduce administrative burdens for tax-exempt status. Streamlining the application process for “authorised donee” status could encourage more organisations to formalise and expand their work.
For domestic philanthropy:
Improve transparency and data-sharing. Foundations should strengthen reporting on funding allocations and make this information public. Rather than creating new structures, existing networks and large foundations should develop and promote shared reporting standards and co‑ordination mechanisms. Their leadership is essential to ensure coherent approaches.
Increase collaboration with public institutions. Structured platforms for dialogue can help overcome mistrust and ensure a more strategic use of philanthropic resources.
Direct more funding to underserved regions. Domestic foundations are well-placed to target high‑poverty areas. Incentives or matching schemes could help redirect funding where it is most needed.
Strengthen evaluation and share lessons learned. Larger domestic foundations can play a trend‑setting role by supporting the adoption of common monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Capacity-building, peer learning and shared tools can help smaller or younger organisations assess impact more effectively and promote a culture of evidence-based philanthropy. Ultimately, stronger evaluation practices can help identify blind spots, such as underfunded sectors, and guide more strategic philanthropic investments.
For international donors:
Strengthen collaboration with domestic foundations. By partnering with local organisations in shared priority sectors such as education and health, cross-border funders could improve their effectiveness and promote locally-led development.
Diversify sectoral support. International donors should co-ordinate more closely with domestic philanthropic actors and local government to identify sectors that receive limited domestic support, such as environmental protection, reproductive health, and water and sanitation, and concentrate their funding in these areas. By complementing rather than duplicating domestic efforts, international philanthropy can help address unmet needs and ensure a more balanced distribution of development resources in Mexico.
