March 26, 1998 | Read Time: 3 minutes
Rightly or wrongly, preeminence in size has given some foundations preeminence in press attention and public recognition. And to some degree, the largest foundations have been accorded public respect as “leaders” in the field — if only because of an American proclivity to associate size with significance.
The Rockefeller Foundation in earlier years, and the Ford Foundation in more recent times, have been beneficiaries of that tendency.
The latest figures on the assets of American foundations, however, scramble the list of the biggest. Because of the riotously buoyant stock market in the past year, the assets of the Lilly Endowment have vaulted from some $5-billion to more than $12-billion, making it now the largest fund in the nation. Ford’s assets have grown from $7.5-billion to more than $9.4-billion, dropping it to No. 2 in the ranking. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation is now close on its heels, with $8.9-billion. And the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, with $8.3-billion, formerly second in the ranking by size, is now fourth (The Chronicle, January 29).
The huge growth in assets, of course, means that more resources are available for grant making and, therefore, for greater nourishment of the non-profit world. It also gives an early signal of the vast impending transfer of private wealth into philanthropy — a trend that will be increasingly evident for at least the next 20 years. The data on the present scale of accumulated private wealth in the United States, and the prospect that a considerable portion of that wealth will be added to the nation’s philanthropic resources, make for a pretty reliable expectation of boom times for philanthropy in the years just ahead.
But will the recent and prospective growth in philanthropic resources mean improved leadership in the foundation field? Will Lilly now be assumed to be “the leading American foundation”? Does Ford necessarily deserve to be second? And so on, down the line.
In judging philanthropic performance, it is not only simplistic but also dangerous to equate size with significance. One of the new “top five” foundations has, at best, a mediocre record of performance. Another has a very mixed record. Still another is simply dull. And several foundations that are outstanding in terms of their leadership and grant making are not among the giants at all.
Instead of a focus on size, more-pertinent questions have to be continually asked — and answered. Are a foundation’s objectives relevant and significant, or is its grant making out of touch and out of date? Is a foundation’s mode of operation with grant recipients responsive and collaborative, or is the grant maker becoming rigid and arbitrary? Does the foundation listen to newcomers, the unorthodox, and even the cantankerous among grant seekers, and not only to the Fortunate 500? And does a foundation have not only the courage of its convictions but also the confidence in its risky programs to stick with them long enough to give them a fair chance to work — and, even more important, to abandon them when they have clearly failed?
That more resources are pouring into the philanthropic world is good news indeed. But in judging foundations and according them the honor, respect, and recognition they deserve, much more must be taken into account than the size of each one’s bank account. Relevance, responsiveness, openness, creativity, courage, and impact are far more important.
Waldemar A. Nielsen is the author of Inside American Philanthropy: The Dramas of Donorship (University of Oklahoma Press) and many other books on charitable giving. He is a regular contributor to these pages.
