This post originally appeared on Philamplify.org.
Yes, Virginia, “philamplify” really is a verb. Or at least, that’s what my colleagues tell me, so I’m going to take it on faith that it’s true. And yes, we are going to philamplify more foundations this coming year. So, during this season of generosity, we want to offer our readers the gift that keeps on giving – information. It seems only fitting that a project seeking more transparency and honest dialogue in the sector would practice what it preaches. So get ready to find out which foundations are going under the Philamplify microscope next and let us know your feedback.
But first, I want to answer the frequently asked question, “How do you decide which foundations to assess?” which I first addressed when we launched the project last May. Like the first round, this next set has been drawn from the pool of independent and family foundations that primarily give grants domestically and are among the largest foundations in the U.S., based on assets and giving. They have the following characteristics:
- Among the four foundations being “philamplified,” their assets range from $800 million to $3.3 billion, and total giving from $29 million to $423 million.
- They are based in the South, Midwest and Northeast, demonstrating our continued interest in geographic diversity. Whereas four of the five foundations assessed last year were focused exclusively on a specific region, state or city, this next round generally operates at a much broader geographic scale. Almost each foundation could be characterized as a national foundation that also funds efforts for its home community.
- These foundations support a variety of issues, together funding program areas that include the arts, education, health, human services, the environment, civic engagement and journalism.
- Two are family foundations and two are independent. Two have recently conducted CEP Grantee Perception Reports. One is an NCRP funder.
By philamplifying a set of foundations with these diverse characteristics , we hope that each review will tell a compelling story with lessons that resonate among other foundation and nonprofit leaders. And with that, it’s time for the drum roll please…
The foundations being philamplified, and the principal researcher for each assessment, are:
- Hess Foundation, Inc. – conducted by Elizabeth Myrick, who wrote our Philamplify report on the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation.
- John S. and James L. Knight Foundation – conducted by Lisa Ranghelli, who is NCRP’s director of foundation assessment.
- Kresge Foundation – conducted by Elizabeth Myrick, who has more than 20 years’ experience in philanthropy.
- Walton Family Foundation, Inc. – conducted by Gita Gulati-Partee, who wrote our Philamplify assessment of The California Endowment and co-authored some of NCRP’s series of reports on the impacts of advocacy and organizing.
Now here’s your chance to give this season by being generous with your knowledge and insight. Have you had direct experience working with any of these four foundations? Do you have information that could inform our understanding of its strategies and impact? Or do you know other people who are knowledgeable and you think we should contact? We want to hear from you! (And don’t worry, our surveys and interviews are completely confidential.)
For Hess and Knight, please contact Peter Haldis by email or at (202) 387-9177, x34.
For Kresge and Walton, please contact Jocelyn O’Rourke by email or at (202) 387-9177, x10.
Even if you don’t have direct knowledge of any of these foundations’ work, we welcome your feedback on our choices! Which is the most surprising? Which assessment are you most eager to read? Share your comments below or tweet using the #Philamplify hashtag.
Lisa Ranghelli is director of foundation assessment at NCRP. She also served as the primary researcher for the Philamplify assessment of the William Penn Foundation. Follow @NCRP and join the #Philamplify conversation on Twitter.
Leave a Reply