In observational studies, identification of ATEs is generally achieved by assuming "no unmeasured confounding," possibly after conditioning on enough covariates. Because this assumption is both strong and untestable, a sensitivity analysis should be performed. Common approaches include modeling the bias directly or varying the propensity scores to probe the effects of a potential unmeasured confounder. In this paper, we take a novel approach whereby the sensitivity parameter is the proportion of unmeasured confounding. We consider different assumptions on the probability of a unit being unconfounded. In each case, we derive sharp bounds on the average treatment effect as a function of the sensitivity parameter and propose nonparametric estimators that allow flexible covariate adjustment. We also introduce a one-number summary of a study's robustness to the number of confounded units. Finally, we explore finite-sample properties via simulation, and apply the methods to an observational database used to assess the effects of right heart catheterization.