Research on time-limited philanthropy used to be scarce, but it’s expanding fast. Foundation Center has just scanned the intellectual landscape, and the results are intriguing.
Are foundation officers more courageous risk-takers than other people? Some new research says: Evidently not. Then again, should they be?
For a foundation spending down, the final years entail a lot of ending, closing, and exiting. But there are good reasons why they should also include some creative new work.
A lot of foundations automatically shun proposals for buildings. There are good reasons to reconsider.
Organizations need change periodically, and most of them think they’ve found the perfect one. The Ford Foundation isn’t so sure, but it’s open to suggestion.
Foundations hold troves of important research and evaluations. But how do they decide what parts of this to publicize, how, and for what audiences?
By at least one measure, the Kresge Foundation has made the biggest bet, among all national foundations, on the future of Detroit. The question is: What led them to accept the risk?
Here’s a further thought on my last post, about the Kresge Foundation’s ambitious, high-risk effort to help Detroit come out of bankruptcy as a stronger, more stable city.
A recent talk by the president of the Kresge Foundation sheds light on the path by which Detroit emerged from bankruptcy last Friday, and the pivotal role of philanthropy.
Those who doubt foundations’ real appetite for risk make a strong case. But then comes the Kresge Foundation and its efforts to help Detroit survive bankruptcy — a crisis that many people have considered near-hopeless.
Foundations’ passion for grouping their grantees into networks may lead to quicker learning and more efficient operations. But it sometimes leads nowhere at all.