“Foundations don’t fully understand higher education (and vice versa), and they tend to look outward at issues that affect a lot of institutions while institutions focus inwardly on their own well being,” said Gene Tempel, executive director of the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, during his keynote address at CIC’s 19th Annual Conversation between Foundation Officers and College and University Presidents. Consequently, according to Tempel, too often there is a gap between what foundations expect and what colleges can deliver.

Tempel and other speakers at the October 9, 2007, event addressed the theme, “Foundations Debate Their Own Future: The Impact on Higher Education of Changing Assumptions about How Philanthropy Works.” Approximately 100 college and university presidents and foundation officers participated in the meeting, held at TIAA-CREF’s Clifton R. Wharton Jr. Auditorium in New York City.

Tempel noted that the landscape is shifting rapidly in the foundation world and presidents of universities and colleges need to take account of the shift if they are to continue to be effective in seeking foundation grants. His address on “Foundations and Higher Education” began with a review of recent trends in donor giving, including the facts that donors are giving larger gifts to colleges and universities and they are more likely to restrict the uses of their funds. Younger donors, he said, want to “change the world with a major gift,” so they are more apt to bring their own ideas to the table and want to determine how their gifts are used. In addition, foundations are increasingly dealing with living donors, while more donors are choosing to establish their own foundations. Today’s donors with the greatest net worth frequently transfer their wealth through private or community foundations. Tempel noted that the number of foundations has exploded in recent years, increasing from fewer than 22,000 in 1975 to more than 71,000 in 2005, while foundation giving to education has leveled off in the past ten years. As the number of foundations has grown, he said, “the foundation world has become more visible and thus more vulnerable to a distrustful public that doesn’t understand how it functions.”

To compensate for the differing expectations between foundation and higher education officials, Tempel recommended that presidents build coalitions among institutions and seek funding for collaborative programs; get to know foundations’ leadership, their goals, and their plans; learn to deal with foundations’ short-term expectations; build relationships with donor-designated funds and with alumni leading foundations and trusts; develop a close relationship with area community foundations; and establish closer ties with larger research interests. Always, he advised, college leaders should ask foundation executives, “How can we be of service to your goals?”

Panelists who explored “How Internal Influences Come Together to Shape What Foundations Expect of Institutions Receiving their Grants” also suggested ways for presidents to approach foundation officials. Ryan LaHurd, president and executive director of the James S. Kemper Foundation, especially likes programs that affect a large number of students, include specific assessment criteria, and can be replicated in other institutions. He urged presidents to “pay attention to the types of projects we fund and read our guidelines. Try to meet people at foundations. Talk to officers about your proposal. Educate us about what is important to you. Be specific about what you are proposing. And recognize that foundation program officers really do want to give away money!”

James Collins, treasurer of the George I. Alden Trust, said the Trust funds only small colleges in six New England states with a capacity for effective use of technology and supports student-centered programs with specific outcomes such as improving student retention rates and enhancing student social responsibility.

Edward Jones, vice president of the JPMorgan Chase Bank and Booth Ferris Foundation, characterized his foundation as a “reactive funder” that asks college presidents about their greatest needs and tries to fund them, often partnering with other funders to do so. This approach contrasts with most other foundations, such as the Gates Foundation, that identify the issues they want to address and fund only programs that address those issues.

Breakout discussion groups on the subject of “Making the Case for the Impact of Our Grant-funded Programs in the Face of Insistent Calls for Accountability” were led by Daniel Fallon, program director of higher education, Carnegie Corporation of New York; Ilene Mack, program director for grants, William Randolph Hearst Foundations; Donna Heiland, vice president for programs, Teagle Foundation; and Eugene M. Tobin, program officer for liberal arts colleges, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.