The names of the great, and the good, grace countless trusts as monuments to wealthy benefactors now long dead. In contrast, Charles (Chuck) Feeney believes in giving generously and anonymously during his lifetime, in exchange for no recognition at all. His foundation, Atlantic Philanthropies, preaches “Giving while living” – a forerunner of the Giving Pledge that many Carnegie Philanthropy Medalists support.
Born in Jersey in 1931 to Irish American parents during the Great Depression, he made his fortune as a co-founder of the Duty Free Shoppers Group, which pioneered the concept of duty-free shopping. He served as a US Air Force radio operator during the Korean War, and began his career selling duty-free liquor to US sailors at Mediterranean ports in the 1950s.
While Feeney enjoyed the thrill of successful business ventures and smart investments, he felt little desire for the wealth that accompanied his extraordinary success. Always quick to pitch in money to worthy causes, he started thinking about making a big impact in philanthropy in the late 1970’s. His personal advisor recommended Andrew Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth and Feeney set up his Foundation with those ideals in mind. He put nearly his entire fortune into the Foundation, while keeping his involvement a total secret from the outside world.
After rigorous vetting by Feeney himself, beneficiaries were sworn to secrecy about the identity of the donor. Feeney sought no buildings in his name and no recognition for his gifts. This spoke to his belief system, seeing himself, as Carnegie would say, simply as a steward of his wealth. In fact it was only due to a business dispute that his philanthropic activities became public in 1997. He is known for his frugality, living in a rented apartment, not owning a car or a house, and flying economy-class despite his enormous wealth.
Feeney’s approach is neatly summed up in his single quote on the subject, “I had one idea that never changed in my mind – that you should use your wealth to help people.” The anonymity also provided him a strategic advantage. Unbothered by requests for aid, he could take his time feeling out organizations and opportunities to make sure his donation would have impact.
Library and McGraw bell tower on the Cornell University campus. (Photo by John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Looking back over his catalogue of generosity, it is easy to see where his passion lies. He focused on areas he knew or had experience in, and most efforts had some personal connection. Cornell, which Feeney credits with setting him up for success, received both the first grant and the final one (along with many in between). Higher education is a reoccurring theme, with Atlantic Philanthropies helping with schools and training in Ireland as well as Vietnam, Cuba, and South Africa, all of which he saw struggling without sufficient help.
Unlike business titans of old, then, Feeney has not hoarded his wealth. He wanted to spend the money invested in his Foundation quickly, especially if there was an opportunity to make a big, sustainable impact. Over the course of his life, Chuck Feeney has given away over $8 billion, with his last $7 million going to Cornell in 2016. Warren Buffet perhaps summed up where Feeney falls in the ranks of philanthropists. Speaking to Forbes magazine in 2014, Buffet said, “It’s a real honor to talk about a fellow who is my hero and Bill Gates’ hero. He should be everybody’s hero.
Feeney has been called the “James Bond of philanthropy,” for his secrecy and success. In 1997, Time Magazine said that “Feeney’s beneficence already ranks among the grandest of any living American.”
So while there may currently be no marble busts of Feeney gathering dust or lawyers poring over complicated bequests, his work is living testament to generosity and largesse of the most impressive kind.
Carnegie’s Creation of the Groundbreaking Public Television Series
The beginning of the iconic children’s program Sesame Street can be traced to an apartment in Manhattan’s Gramercy Park.
Education TV officials told a Senate subcommittee on Equal Educational Opportunities that television is a potential ‘savior of our society’ that could turn its mind-molding powers to providing all children everywhere equal educational opportunity. Mrs. Joan Ganz Cooney, of New York City, president of Children’s Television Workshop, praised the show Sesame Street which she said is now reaching 7 million of the nation’s youngsters each week.
It was 1966 when Joan Ganz Cooney, who worked in public television, hosted a small dinner party at her place. Her boss, Lewis Freedman, was there, as was Lloyd Morrisett, an executive at the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Freedman started talking about the potential in using television to help educate children.
“Something clicked in Lloyd’s mind because Carnegie was financing research in educational development of children, how they learn,” Ganz Cooney said in a 1998 interview for the Archive of American Television. “And he and his wife, after 10 years of marriage, had two little kids and he had noticed that there was nothing really on for them. He had gotten up one morning and found them watching test patterns, waiting for something to come on. So it all sort of came together in his mind – why not do something educational, good for children, that will help them cognitively?”
In the early days of broadcasting, this was a novel concept. Days later, an exploratory meeting was held at Carnegie. Soon after that, Ganz Cooney was traveling throughout the United States and Canada, researching the use of television for preschool education for what turned out to be a groundbreaking report.
On Nov. 10, 1969, Sesame Street premiered, with the distinguished actor James Earl Jones appearing as the first celebrity guest. For the first time, educational goals and a curriculum were used to shape content, and child psychologists advised on the impact storylines would have. As author Malcolm Gladwell has said, “Sesame Street was built around a single, breakthrough insight: that if you can hold the attention of children, you can educate them”.
“The reception was so incredible,” Ganz Cooney said in the archived interview. “The press adored us, the parents adored us. Nothing like it had ever been on the air, and there has been very few television programs – and maybe it’s the only one in history – that got this kind of immense reaction.”
Sesame Street Creator Joan Ganz Cooney attends the 12th Annual Sesame Workshop Benefit Gala at Cipriani 42nd Street on May 28, 2014 in New York City. (Photo by Desiree Navarro/WireImage)
Nearly half a century later, Sesame Street remains a staple of Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), although new episodes now appear on HBO first. Big Bird, the Cookie Monster, Bert and Ernie, Elmo and the other Muppets are among the most cherished and popular faces of children’s programming.
It remains groundbreaking. It has addressed real-life disasters such as the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina. In April 2017, Sesame Street introduced Julia, a new Muppet who has autism, performed by Stacey Gordon, who has a son on the autistic spectrum.
“Sesame Street literally would not be here were it not for the bold vision and audacious philanthropy of the Carnegie Corporation,” says Sherrie Westin, executive vice president of global impact and philanthropy at the Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization behind the show and other educational initiatives. “That investment proved to be transformational for children’s television, as we know, and millions of children have benefited.”
It is as American as apple pie, and holds a special place in the heart of anyone who has grown up in the US. Indeed, surveys show that 95 per cent of preschoolers have watched it. But extraordinarily, Sesame Street is also now one of America’s great exports. Its effect on children worldwide could not have been foreseen.
The workshop reaches 156 million children in 150 countries. Study after study has pointed out Sesame Street’s success. A 2013 report found that children who watch one of its international versions gain an average of nearly twelve percentile points on learning outcomes. In Afghanistan, children who watch it test 29 per cent higher on gender equity attitudes. In Bangladesh, 49 percent more children use soap for hand washing after participating in a Sesame Workshop program. And a new Harvard Business Review article lists Sesame Street among the past century’s fifteen examples of social movements that defied odds and achieved life-changing results.
HACKENSACK, NJ – FEBRUARY 22: Elmo And Grover From Sesame Street Live Visit The Children Of Joseph M. Sanzari Children’s Hospitall on February 22, 2017 in Hackensack, New Jersey (Photo by Dave Kotinsky/Getty Images)
Carnegie helped establish the landmark television series and pass the Public Broadcasting Act, which led to the creation of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). This November marks a key anniversary: the Public Broadcasting Act turns 50.
Public TV was the only place to watch all 250 hours of Watergate testimony. And when NPR started broadcasting in April 1971, it showed live coverage of Senate deliberations on the Vietnam War.
Recent threats to future funding appear to have been averted. The new federal government originally proposed eliminating all federal money for public broadcasting. But a House committee recently appropriated a budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports nearly 1,500 public television and radio stations nationwide.
“As we mark the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act, this uniquely American public-private partnership continues to keep its promise—to provide high-quality, trusted content that educates, inspires, informs and enriches in ways that benefit our civil society,” Patricia Harrison, CPB’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Through the nearly 1,500 locally owned and operated public radio and television stations across the country, public media reaches 99 percent of the American people from big cities to small towns and rural communities. At approximately $1.35 per citizen per year it is one of America’s best infrastructure investments—paying huge dividends in education, public safety and civic leadership for millions of Americans and their families.”
Westin says it is vital to stress that the benefits of children’s public television are greatest for those who have the least. And as Sesame Street gears up for its 50th birthday celebration in 2019, it is a good time to inform people about the breadth of its work.
“People love our broadcast, but often don’t realize we’re in 150 countries or that we’re in developing countries like Bangladesh, Afghanistan and in South Africa, making a difference,” she says. “And the 50th anniversary gives us the opportunity to celebrate all the work we’ve done addressing the challenges of the most vulnerable children around the world.”
So that 1960s dinner party in Gramercy Park had a huge and lasting impact. Whether it is in helping tackle HIV/AIDS in South Africa, progressing girls’ education in Afghanistan or raising awareness of autism in the United States, you can count on Big Bird and friends to be there.
The United Nations stands in midtown Manhattan on January 26, 2017 in New York City. President Donald Trump is preparing executive orders that would reduce US funding of the United Nations and other international organizations. The first order would cut funding for any U.N. agency or other international group that meets any specific criteria. Organizations and groups to receive cuts may include peacekeeping missions, the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Population Fund. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
After taking office in January, President Trump quickly reinstated the “global gag rule,” a policy that prevents organizations around the world from receiving U.S. funds if their services include abortions, or even providing information about abortion. Research shows the rule leaves a devastating impact, including preventing girls and women from accessing health services, hampering HIV prevention efforts, and contributing to the closure of health clinics.
So a day after the order, a group of Dutch officials gathered to figure out what to do.
“We said, ‘We’re not going to let this happen,’” says Rebekka Van Roemburg, co-lead of the support unit of the organization formed as a result, She Decides. “A bunch of civil servants in a little room were steaming and they came up with this name [She Decides].’ Within a couple of days, the website was launched to get money from the public, and other governments said they also wanted to join. So they are all basically queuing up and saying, ‘What are we going to do?’”
Just over a month later, a conference was held in Belgium with more than 450 participants from about 50 governments interested in participating. They agreed to work together to support girls and women, and pledged more than $200 million for the cause.
She Decides exemplifies how foundations, the public and the business sector – as well as governments – are coming together at a time when the U.S. government is pulling back on its investments in global issues such as health and reproductive rights, and climate change. Such initiatives also illustrate the commitment of the philanthropic field to support the work of the United Nations and its agencies. While some have raised concerns about the kind of influence and potential conflicts non-governmental funding may create at the UN, others say is critical in order to meet the demands of growing global challenges.
Van Roemburg says it is difficult to make up the gap created when a top funder such as the United States withdraws its support. But many foundations are stepping up their contributions because they recognize that girls and women’s lives depend on the programs affected. Foundations can help prevent such harm, and propel proactive change, she says.
“Foundations can be a lot edgier and say, ‘We really think this issue deserves a push that’s maybe a little more difficult for a government to give,’” she says. “We like to see ourselves as a positive disruptor, where we bolster the brave and are unapologetic about things, and we can do that. Governments are less able to go into the cutting-edge stuff, and foundations can do that.”
Pledges for She Decides are approaching $500 million, and some 30,000 people and organizations have signed its manifesto, committing to speaking out, changing unfavorable rules and unlocking resources for girls and women. A number of foundations have already given support or voiced interest in getting involved, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Ford Foundation, she says. One of the co-founders of a U.K. charity, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, has been helping get other foundations involved, she says. The bulk of the money will go to organizations that have long been working in the field, such as the International Planned Parenthood Foundation and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
In 2016, the United States was the UNFPA’s fourth biggest funder, contributing $69 million. Since the new federal government came into place, no money has been received.
“This means that our programs in all of the 150 countries that we operate in have been reduced in a whole-scale fashion,” says Klaus Simoni Pederson, chief of UNFPA’s resource mobilization branch. “We’ve tried to protect the poorest as much as possible, but everyone has been hit. The money simply isn’t there.”
Without financial support from the U.S. government, about 48,000 women will lose access to safe delivery, 34 mobile health teams can no longer travel to remote areas to provide services, 17 safe spaces for women and girls will stop providing support, and 54 health facilities that provide reproductive and maternal health services will lose support, according to the UNFPA.
The philanthropic field is stepping in, and this includes the Gates Foundation and Oak Foundation, Pederson says. Governments that have increased their contributions include Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain and Sweden, he says.
There are also examples beyond health and reproductive rights. When President Trump announced that the United States would pull out of the landmark Paris agreement to reduce harmful carbon emissions, former New York Mayor and 2009 Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy recipient Michael Bloomberg pledged $15 million through his foundation to support the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
There are some concerns about the growing role of private money at the UN. A recent Global Policy article says that in 2013, about 14 percent of voluntary contributions to the UN system, or $3.3 billion, came from foundations, corporations and civil society. The article points out several problems with this, such as the lack of transparency and accountability, the influence on UN policies and agenda setting, and the rise of “philanthrocapitalism,” or the applying of business and market-based approaches at the intergovernmental body.
But Pederson says that before receiving money, every potential partnership is closely vetted.
“If you are willing to support the issues that are included in our strategic plan that we’re adopting, then we’re extremely grateful and this is very welcome,” he says. “We have a rather long list of corporate partners and foundations and so forth, so we’re not hesitant as long as you agree with the main work of the organization and we have done the due diligence.”
As global problems and crises intensify, budgets are often not keeping up, so partnerships are critical for addressing these challenges, says Nick Nuttall, spokesperson and director of communications and outreach at the UNFCCC.
“The UN is an institution that, for many, many years has faced increasingly squeezed budgets and increasing demands on what governments want it to do,” he says. “So I think the UN system as a whole is trying to work more closely with foundations and the progressively minded private sector. We have to be careful because we have to make sure what these people want is not much different from what we want. But if their interests align with our interests and our due diligence shows that is the case, then we’ll welcome it.”
The Global Policy article says that while there is a growing trend of the UN opening up to corporate and philanthropic dollars, the funding percentages at UN agencies remain small. For example, voluntary contributions from the private sector, foundations and other non-state actors to UN Women accounted for only 1.8 percent of all contributions in 2015, and only about 3 percent at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
Van Roemburg says it is still early days in terms of assessing the full impact of the United States’ decision to pull some of its funding from global programs. But money often equals power, so the shift could also mean that other governments and institutions end up taking on more leadership roles. As the dust settles from Trump’s surprise rise to office, a new landscape is emerging.
As a media tycoon, Ted Turner knows all about staying in the news. At the age of 78, Turner remains a steady presence, featuring regularly across the press in a variety of incarnations. Certainly, it is hard to imagine a more interesting person to keep tabs on. One week it will be a report on his bison farming efforts. The next it will be an article reminiscing about his forays into the world of wrestling. His name is still a hot topic in the sailing world, as well as popping up occasionally on the society pages – thanks to his knack for quotes and memorable marriages. But lately the creator of the Cable News Network (CNN) has been in the news for some of his most celebrated and worthy work: his efforts at saving the environment and promoting peace throughout the world.
In 1997, Turner launched the United Nations Foundation with a $1 billion gift. As an organization, it continues to work with the United Nations to address issues including child health, climate change and energy, and sustainable development. In addition, the gift functioned as a proto-Giving Pledge, with Turner calling on other wealthy Americans to follow his lead, telling the New York Times, “There’s a lot of people who are awash in money they don’t know what to do with. It doesn’t do you any good if you don’t know what to do with it.” Of course, as one of America’s most prominent businessmen, it is no surprise that Turner was one of the first to sign the Giving Pledge when Bill Gates and Warren Buffet got the ball rolling in 2010.
Captain Planet, Former President Jimmy Carter and Captain Planet Co-Founder Ted Turner appear on stage during the Captain Planet Foundation’s benefit gala at Georgia Aquarium on December 7, 2012 in Atlanta, Georgia. Former President Jimmy Carter received the 2012 Captain Planet Foundation Exemplar Award during the gala. (Photo by Ben Rose/Getty Images)
The United Nations Foundation gift only hints at how deeply Turner wants the world to be a better place. Having countries and leaders work together is a great first step, but that is clearly not enough for Turner. His other efforts go to extraordinary lengths to help make the world a better, safer place. His Captain Planet initiative is aimed at educating youngsters about the environment. The cartoon, fondly remembered by children from the 90’s, still has resonance, with the Captain Planet Foundation one of the most active organizations in promoting ecological stewardship to the youth.
Turner has put serious financial fire power behind his concerns. He funds a whole family of organizations that are tackling climate change, disappearing habitats, and other environmental concerns from a number of angles. The Turner Foundation and the Turner Endangered Species Fund are both targeted efforts to protect and restore the natural world. And the bison that Turner raises (well over 55,000 at this point) are not because he is an eccentric billionaire, but because he sees this farming as the way forward for sustainable and healthy meat.
(L-R) Ted Turner and Sam Donaldson (Photo by Jerry Fitzgerald/ABC via Getty Images)
Ted Turner is not bashful about taking risks. But he is doing everything he can to eliminate risk to the planet we inhabit. Along with the previously mentioned programs, he is behind the Nuclear Threat Initiative and a member of the Ocean Elders. He is man who has had many adventures across the globe, and he is doing everything in his power to ensure that the world remains available for future adventurers. That is surely a newsworthy ambition.
Mike Bloomberg is a man who never knowingly takes the easy route. He could put his feet up and live the good life. Instead he has habitually done the exact opposite, heading straight into challenges because the world could be better for it. Many of his efforts may have seemed foolhardy at the time, but now look to be the choice of an inspired genius. His approach throughout his life has been assertively singular. He has tried on every political party for size, for instance, finally settling on being “independent”. But behind the tough New York politician is a genuinely caring man.
Bloomberg’s success grew from failure, and a desire to do something different, something that no one else had tried. Having lost his job at Wall Street’s Salomon Brothers due to restructuring, he decided not to jump back into the world of finance as might have been expected. Instead, he invested his money in the burgeoning information technology industry, and what is now known as Bloomberg LP was born. By bringing a new level of transparency and efficiency to buying and selling, the company revolutionized the industry, and what was once a one-room office in New York has since become a worldwide company with over 15,000 employees.
Bloomberg proved himself to be up to the challenge of a totally new job once, so why not do it again? And what could be tougher than creating a totally new start-up? Perhaps running for mayor in one of the most politically challenging places in the world, and this was precisely what Bloomberg of course did. In 2001 Mike Bloomberg was elected the 108th Mayor of New York City. He governed with a mixture of brashness and compassion, a good mirror to the city itself, and reliably rose to the unique challenges the city presented. Much like in his earlier triumph, it was his innovative outlook that made his tenure so successful. His savviness in business helped the city weather the deep national recession better than any other metropolis in the country. And his passion for the well-being of New Yorkers resulted in public health and climate change policies that have since served as a model for the nation. He clearly could not get enough of the challenge, staying on through a third term before moving on to even bigger things.
Arnold Schwarzenegger (C) and Michael Bloomberg (L) get a tour of the Bloom Energy facility September 21, 2006 in Sunnyvale, California. (Photo by David Paul Morris/Getty Images)
Yet again at this point, Bloomberg had the opportunity to relax. After twelve years as the mayor of the city that never sleeps, he had certainly earned a break. But it was a break that he had no interest in taking. Along with going back to Bloomberg LP, he turned his focus to Bloomberg Philanthropies, which dealt with many of the issues he tackled as mayor – public health, arts and culture, the environment, education and government innovation. In addition, he has contributed more than $1 billion to Johns Hopkins. The University’s School of Hygiene and Public Health – the largest public health facility in the U.S. – is now the Bloomberg School of Public Health. Bloomberg also leads a number of bi-partisan coalitions that are taking action on urgent national and international issues, and in 2014 he was appointed to be the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change.
To date, Bloomberg has donated nearly $5 billion to a wide variety of causes and organizations, with Bloomberg Philanthropies donating billions more. The world is always confronting new challenges, and Mike Bloomberg will certainly keep on facing them head on.
If you live in Utah, you are in America’s most charitable state. If you are in New England, you may be in one of the country’s less philanthropic areas.
As a nation, the United States has a deep tradition of giving, but some areas are simply more generous than others.
Different surveys use different methodologies to determine which places are the most giving. But one thing remains consistent: Utah always tops the list. The main reason cited for this is the Mormon religion and tithing – the practice of giving one tenth of income to the church.
The trend also holds true when cities are ranked – in a 2012 Chronicle of Philanthropy report that looks at generosity in America’s 366 metropolitan areas, the top four spots all went to Utah. Meanwhile, Worcester, Mass., Lewiston, Maine and Manchester-Nashua, N.H. rank at the bottom. These three states, along with Vermont, also rank as the least charitable in the survey.
Source: Chronicle of Philanthropy
Source: Chronicle of Philanthropy
Many factors are at play. Some studies indicate that residents of rural and small towns donate more, as do those in more religious areas. The Southern states usually rank higher, and New England ranks lower.
“In some of the New England states, there is probably a stronger government safety net and facilities than in some of the more rural areas,” so the need may not be as great, says Elizabeth Boris, a fellow at the Urban Institute who is the founding director of its Center for Nonprofits and Philanthropy.
Some areas have many more non-profit organizations and therefore many charitable options, Boris says. People also tend to give more if they are asked to donate – and this is more likely to happen in tight-knit communities.
One recent study examines the performance of non-profit organizations in the 30 largest metropolitan areas. The Charity Navigator report found that factors such as the cost of living and a city’s tendency to support specialized causes greatly influence an organization’s ability to raise money. It found that charities in Houston, D.C. and Los Angeles receive the highest median contributions, while those in Philadelphia, Boston and Minneapolis/St. Paul get the least.
Overall, America is certainly a generous place. In 2016, individual giving rose to an all-time high, exceeding $390 billion, according to the Giving USA 2017 report. All nine sectors of giving increased, with religion still topping the list. With 32 percent of contributions going to religion, this sector receives more than twice the funding as the next category, which is education.
In terms of political affiliation, red states – which are also more religious – rank better than blue states, according to WalletHub and Chronicle of Philanthropy surveys.
Red States are More Generous than Blue States
Source: WalletHub
Rebecca Riccio, director of the Social Impact Lab at Northeastern University, says while people in more religious states tend to give more, there is a need to study the impact of such giving.
“Everyone always stops at the conclusion that people in states that have the highest participation in faith-based organizations give the most money, but we don’t really look at how does that giving translate into impact in the community,” she says. “Something I think is hugely important for people to think about is that the organization you give to is not the end point in the flow of the money.”
Worldwide, the United States regularly ranks among the most charitable countries. Last year, it ranked second, behind Myanmar, according to the World Giving Index.
Source: Charities Aid Foundation
Riccio says Americans believe in supporting communities, but the country lacks a strong social safety net.
“We are a caring society, we believe in obligations to each other, yet we do not want to fulfill that obligation via taxes, so charity is what’s left for us as a vehicle to respond to the needs in our communities,” she says. “It’s a fascinating dynamic and it’s very distinctly American.”
Riccio says there should not be a specific benchmark when it comes to what percentage of income people should donate – a figure that averages at about two percent nationally. Instead, she says she hopes everyone thinks about how much they can afford to give. She says it is also critical for everyone to realize the importance of non-profit organizations year-round, and not just during political turmoil and emergencies.
“I really believe in encouraging people to understand more deeply how absolutely necessary the non-profit sector is to the social fabric in the U.S.,” Riccio says, “and how dependent all of us are on it for our quality of life, from cradle to grave.”
Everyone should think about making a difference beyond charitable giving, by considering everything from how they volunteer to how they vote, shop and manage their homes and businesses, Riccio says. She says individuals have powerful toolkits at their disposal – and it’s up to each one of us to decide how to use them for the greater good.
Depending on where you get your news, Agnes Gund is defined as many laudable things; a philanthropist, a collector, a patron, an advocate. It is worth noting that not only are all the descriptions accurate, they are all equally valid. Aggie (as she’s known to her diverse group of friends) has made an enormous impact in the art world, the philanthropic world, and remains a critical figure in New York City. She has been an energetic presence across these different spheres for many years now, never slowing down.
Most of what Aggie has done has started with art, using it as a springboard to promote education, equality, and social justice. She has sat on over 20 different boards, often at the same time, all while keeping up the busy social schedule of one of the preeminent patrons and collectors of art. She was awarded the National Medal of the Arts by President Bill Clinton. A decade and a half later she was given the Leonore and Walter Annenberg Award for Diplomacy through the Arts, presented to her by Hillary Clinton. And while many great philanthropists have been given awards, Aggie is in an elite club of being the name of an award – the Independent Curators International gives out the Agnes Gund Award to recognize “an established curator for their outstanding contribution to the world of art.”
Steven Pranica, Kiki Smith, Jeff Koons, Dorothy Lichtenstein, Julie Mehretu, Clifford Ross and Joel Shapiro attend the Studio in a School 40th Anniversary Gala on May 3rd, 2017.
While museums and galleries the world over sing the praises of Aggie, it is her Studio in a School that remains one of her crowning achievements. The genius collaboration of schools and working artists has continued to thrive, reaching nearly a million children in New York City alone. The project continues to provide art education to many children from lower-income families, as well as open doors to the art world to increase the diversity of the staff in museums, galleries, and art houses. As she told Artnet, “I wanted to do something that was not just a little bit here and a little bit there, but could really have an impact on school art programs.” Four decades later, the impact Studio in a School has made it truly seismic.
Aggie continues to use art to make a splash beyond the world of collectors and curators. In the summer of 2017 she sold Roy Lichtenstein’s “Masterpiece” for $150 million in order to provide seed funding for the visionary Art for Justice Fund. This new effort was created to end mass incarceration in the United States by funding innovative advocacy and intervention. Selling the Lichtenstein functions not only as the initial funding, but as inspiration to other collectors and patrons to get involved. Think of it as a Giving Pledge for the art world. Much like Warren Buffet and Bill and Melinda Gates are using their giving to spur on the giving from other billionaires, Aggie is leading the charge in the art world, and expects others to follow her example.
A visitor stands in front of a painting entitled ‘Masterpiece,’ during a press preview of ‘Lichtenstein, a Retrospective’ at the Tate Modern on February 18, 2013 in London, England. Agnes Gund sold the piece in 2017 to start the Art for Justice Fund.
It seems every year or so there is a new interview or essay about the latest efforts of Agnes Gund. Recent years have seen “Agnes Gund’s Art for Social Justice’s Sake” in The New Yorker, “Agnes Gund, Art’s Grande Dame, Still Has Work to Do” in Vanity Fair, and “A Patron Gives, of Herself and Her Art” in The New York Times. It makes sense – if she never slows down, why should the news? We are all looking forward to what headlines 2018 brings.
While they may not be particularly ostentatious about it, Pam and Pierre Omidyar are voracious when it comes to their approach to philanthropy. The fact that they have already committed over $1 billion dollars to causes close to their hearts is perhaps sometimes obscured by both their innovative methods and the wide variety of projects they tackle. Their approach is as methodical as it is varied, however, and there is little doubt that the impact the pair are having on the philanthropic world will resonate for generations to come.
Pierre became a billionaire in the early days of the tech boom, finding extraordinary success with his creation of eBay, where he still sits as chairman. Along with his wealth, he became one of the first of the Silicon Valley elite to pursue philanthropy, and since founding the Omidyar Network in 2004, his commitment to improving the world has only increased. The Omidyar Network has allowed Pam and Pierre to become philanthropic innovators and investors, funding creative and unique efforts that can both tackle problems and ensure sustainability.
Along with the Omidyar Network, Pam and Pierre have pioneered a number of other foundations to address directly some of the most pressing issues in the world today. HopeLab, which was founded by Pam in 2001, focuses on using cutting edge technology to engage young people and improve their health. What started as an idea to create a video game to help kids fight cancer gradually became much bigger and even bolder. With a generation that sees technology as second nature, HopeLab is leveraging that innate connection to bring about behavior change, enhance human connection, and increase capacity for self-efficacy. Like a spoonful of sugar with medicine, kids are having enough fun that the lessons learned hardly seem like lessons at all.
Humanity United, another of their projects, was founded in 2008 to bring new approaches to some of the biggest and most challenging problems facing mankind, including human trafficking, mass atrocities, and violent conflict. Again, the search for a unique approach is paramount, especially since many of these troubles have existed for as long as human history. The global reach of the foundation is particularly impressive, confronting diverse issues – peace building in Sudan, treatment of migrant workers creating the World Cup facilities in Qatar, and forced labor in the Thai seafood industry. As Pam said, “When humanity is united, we can act together to create a powerful force for human dignity.”
Founder of eBay Pierre Omidyar (L) and producer Jeffrey Skoll attend the 88th Annual Academy Awards at Hollywood & Highland Center on February 28, 2016 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by Randy Shropshire/Getty Images)
What is even more remarkable is that these enormous efforts only scratch the surface of Pam and Pierre’s work so far. While they have maintained a modest lifestyle, the total scope of their work is a challenge to comprehend fully. They are just as enthusiastic about local initiatives in Hawaii as they are about national efforts for fair representation through the Democracy Fund. Most recently, they have become passionate advocates for free speech and trustworthy journalism through the global media platform The World Post and First Look Media. Jeff Skoll, another Carnegie Medalist who is a close friend and colleague put it succinctly: “Pierre is dedicated to social change and he will, deservedly, someday be acknowledged as the Rockefeller or Carnegie of our times.” With their all-encompassing approach and focus on innovation, Pam and Pierre have quickly become the 21st century model of philanthropists.
How Foundations are Helping Ensure Americans’ Access to the Voting Booth
Democracy is precious. It means everyone’s voice being heard. Sometimes, that simple concept is lost, however.
When Marvin Brown, a 90-year-old Army Air Corps veteran, registered to vote by submitting a federal form, he discovered he needed additional proof of citizenship to cast a ballot in local and state elections. Kansas’s new dual registration system meant that while he could vote in the presidential race, he had to supply more documents to elect his local representatives.
For Brown, that missing document was his birth certificate, which was in a different state. His case is one of four lawsuits the ACLU filed against Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, arguing the rule was affecting at least 19,000 Kansans. The ACLU won the case in trial court, and it is now under appeal.
Brown says: “My family has been in Kansas since about 1850. It’s wrong that a bunch of so-called leaders would tell me that I have to show a bunch of extra documents before I can vote. As a military veteran who fought to protect our democracy, it’s particularly offensive.’
The case of course has wide-scale implications. “It just shows how extreme these laws have gotten,” says Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “Usually, the way things work is, if there is reason to think you may not be eligible to vote, they say, ‘Maybe we’ll double check.’ But instead, we’re flipping the process around, where we are double-checking everyone, including a 90-year-old World War II veteran. It’s just insane.”
Philanthropic organizations have long funded work on issues such as election integrity, voter access and education. In recent years, many states have passed laws that make it harder to vote – purportedly to reduce fraud, and efforts by the current administration are making voting rights organizations and civil rights groups even more worried. Foundations focused on democratic rights and civic engagement are supporting litigation and advocacy, as well as outreach efforts. But given the current threat to Americans’ right to vote, there seems to be agreement that philanthropy needs to do more.
Carnegie Corporation of New York, Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundations (OSF) are some of the long-term funders of voting rights work. Some say they have stepped up funding of litigation in recent years due to a spate of laws making voting more difficult, as well as a 2013 Supreme Court decision, Shelby County vs. Holder, that gutted major parts of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 law that helped prevent racial discrimination in voting.
Carnegie Corporation, for example, funds a coalition of ten public interest law firms that work to protect the right to vote, says Geri Mannion, the foundation’s program director of the U.S. Democracy and Special Opportunities Fund.
“Our viewpoint is that we want every citizen to have their voices heard and their votes count,” she says, “especially those who are at a disadvantage.”
Since the 2010 election, hundreds of measures have made it harder for Americans to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Ten states have put in place burdensome voter ID requirements, seven have made it harder to register to vote, six have cut back on early voting options, and three have made it harder for people with past criminal convictions to vote, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. In 2017, at least 99 bills to restrict access to the ballot have been introduced in 31 states, and five states have enacted laws making it harder to vote.
Voting Restrictions in America
Source: Brennan Center for Justice.
The restrictions often disproportionately burden minorities, low-income individuals, students, and people with disabilities, who may have a harder time accessing and paying for required IDs, reaching Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) in remote and rural locations, or getting to far-off polling stations. For example, up to 25 percent of African-Americans lack government-issued ID, compared to only 8 percent of whites.
Other voting restrictions can also have discriminatory effect, such as cutting early voting days, as minorities often rely more on such options. In 2012, black voters in Ohio voted early at twice the rate as whites. In some places, the Sunday before Election Day has historically been the busiest voting day for blacks, thanks to “souls to the polls” events after church. In a legal case in North Carolina, a court said that cutting Sunday voting is equivalent to a “smoking gun” regarding discrimination. Limiting early voting days, imposing voter ID requirements and changing registration requirements target blacks “with almost surgical precision,” the court said.
Julie Fernandes, OSF’s advocacy director for voting rights and democracy, says the 2013 Supreme Court decision Shelby v. Holder opened the doors for such troubling laws. The ruling removed a requirement for states with a history of discriminatory voting practices to get pre-approval for changes in their voting laws by the Department of Justice.
“Now that the protections of Shelby are gone, we’re seeing much more intentional racial discrimination and voter suppression efforts,” she says. “The funders are waking up to that, and saying, ‘This is a real crisis – what are we going to do about it?’”
Between 2011 and 2016, 309 funders distributed 1,859 grants totaling more than $222 million for voter turnout and access, according to the Foundation Center. Litigation was the most popular area, followed closely by advocacy and public policy, then coalition building. Some of the key recent successes have come from lawsuits, with courts striking down laws such as Texas’s voter ID and redistricting laws, and North Carolina’s voter ID law. The Supreme Court recently said it will hear a key gerrymandering case, which could influence how electoral district lines are drawn across the country.
Source: Foundation Center
Between 2012 and 2016, the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project won or settled 15 cases in 12 states protecting the voting rights of more than five million people, Ho says. Before the election, the project planned to grow from five to seven attorneys, but the current plan is to expand to eleven. Ho says that foundations and individual donors are to thank for that.
Ho and others working on voting rights say the current administration poses a great threat to the right to vote. Under new leadership, the Department of Justice is taking a different side in these court cases. President Trump also appointed a commission on election integrity led by Vice President Mike Pence and Kobach, whom the ACLU calls “the king of voter suppression.” The commission says it aims to tackle voter fraud, but studies have shown voter fraud is almost non-existent, raising concerns about the commission’s intentions, such as purging people from voting rolls. Most states recently refused the commission’s request for voters’ private information, and at least seven federal lawsuits have already been filed against it.
Foundation executives say they are responding by ensuring their grantees have funding that is long-term and flexible, so they can quickly address new developments. For example, when the commission sent its request for information, one of Ford’s grantees, Color of Change, quickly reached out to its members to put pressure on secretaries of state not to comply.
Still, some say there has not been enough support given the threat level. Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of the national office of the Advancement Project, says the civil rights organization has not seen spikes in donations, like Planned Parenthood has seen in light of recent attacks on reproductive rights. Often, foundations increase funding only during election years, but that means many restrictive measures get passed in between, Browne Dianis says.
“That is not how we should be safeguarding democracy,” she says. “Our democracy deserves a continued, vigilant watchdog apparatus. “I think the challenge is to get more funders into this space.”
The Funders’ Committee for Civic Participation, which brings grantmakers together, is seeing more interest from foundations looking to get involved with voting rights and civic engagement, Executive Director Eric Marshall says. Last year, the committee added 16 members – the most in its nearly 35-year history. In the first half of this year, it has already added another 16 members, giving a total of 85.
“While there is increased interest, there is still a tremendous gap that philanthropy can fulfill,” he says, adding foundations should be willing to invest in the long-term fight to protect the right to vote. “Foundations need to think about what interim success looks like and trust organizations with strong track records, follow advice on the ground and trust that even if there is short-term failure, you’ll see success in the long term.”
Browne Dianis says some foundations inaccurately view voting rights work as political. Another challenge is that sometimes, money for voting work competes with dollars for political candidates, she says.
“It’s great if you can fund a great candidate,” she says, “but if the election gets stolen, what’s the point? I think the individual donors miss that. If we don’t get the voting piece right, then Americans won’t be heading to the voting booth.”
One important tool for fair elections is the census, which is done once every 10 years and is scheduled for 2020. The census helps determine everything from legislative districts to congressional apportionment. Because the current administration has been openly anti-immigrant, many funders say they are concerned people in immigrant communities will be afraid to provide census information to the government. A number of foundations have been pooling resources together to fund outreach around the census, ensuring it is conducted fairly and accurately, and that it is adequately staffed and financed.
“There is deliberate intention in the funder community to pay attention to the census given its significance, and to invest resources earlier than has happened in the past,” says Erika Wood, Ford’s program officer for civic engagement and government.
Wood and others say another key area is election administration and modernization, as the election system is underfunded and outdated. Poll workers, including volunteers, are often not well trained, Carnegie Corporation’s Mannion says.
“The fact is that our country talks a lot about democracy, but it really doesn’t put money where its mouth is,” she says. “Imagine running your business on volunteers and the biggest sale day of the year, you rely on them to show up?”
Some philanthropists are funding modernization efforts, while others are focusing on state-based capacity-building, restoring the right to vote for people with past criminal records, or proactively advocating for laws that make voting easier. But regardless of their priorities, foundation executives agree: in a democracy, the right to vote is worth fighting for.
As the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said: ‘Where you see wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out, because this is your country. This is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on.’
Author and Scotsman Robert Louis Stevenson is quoted as saying, “Don’t judge each day by the harvest you reap, but by the seeds you plant.” Andrew Carnegie’s approach to philanthropy is evidence of how wise these words are, with Carnegie institutions and libraries flourishing throughout the world, still providing invaluable resources to people every day. Another wealthy Scotsman, Sir Tom Hunter, is following this prestigious lead. Along with being Scotland’s first home-grown billionaire, he has also proven himself to be an extraordinary gift giver, planting all sorts of seeds as he puts his wealth to work.
Many of Sir Tom’s gifts come through his own Hunter Foundation. Since its inception in 1998, it has put over £50 million toward education, international development, and Scottish entrepreneurship. The Foundation’s work has found some high profile supporters, including former US President Barack Obama. Sir Tom gave him a Scottish tartan to thank him for the support. It was not just any Scottish tartan, but a specially created Obama tartan, designed with his history in mind and registered in the Scottish Register of Tartans.
Former US President Barack Obama during a round of golf on the Old Course at St Andrews during a Visit to Scotland. PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Andrew Milligan/PA Wire. (Photo by Andrew Milligan/PA Images via Getty Images)
With much of the gift giving based in Scotland, Sir Tom has found multiple ways to both make a sustainable impact as well as honor the country he so clearly loves. The Royal Bank of Scotland Kiltwalk is an annual charity fundraiser that lets any charity get involved, and The Hunter Foundation adds to all fundraising with an additional 40%. On top of that, The Hunter Foundation gave additional money for every hour of time worked by volunteers at the event. Yet another way to spread the seeds of wealth to many deserving recipients.
Known to be quite a personality, it is fascinating to see who has been influenced Sir Tom, and in turn, who he has influenced. He has put in the initial funding for a Billy Connolly statue in the funnyman’s hometown Glasgow, acknowledging the impact the Scottish comedian had on many lives, including his own. And coming full circle, comedian and documentarian Louise Reay credits Sir Tom with inspiring her to focus on comedy full time, telling iNews, “I once filmed the Scottish entrepreneur Sir Tom Hunter give a motivational speech to some school kids. He was amazing and spoke about the importance of going for what you want and not waiting for permission. It’s so cheesy I know, but this actually is what inspired me to go for it and make my first solo hour comedy show.”
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton greets farmers and residents from the village of Neno with Tom Hunter (2nd-L) during a visit July 20, 2007 to the village of Neno, Malawi. Clinton is on an eight day visit to the African continent to visit sites supported by the Clinton Foundation. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images for the Clinton Foundation)
When signing the Giving Pledge to donate the majority of his wealth to philanthropy, Sir Tom wrote, “We don’t want to be the richest guys in the graveyard, we want to “do good” while we are still alive. Why let others have all the fun?” – echoing Andrew Carnegie’s “The man who dies rich, dies disgraced.” The world is lucky to bear witness to someone heavily influenced by these words who is giving his money away with such purpose, spirit and panache. And he will continue planting seeds of inspiration and empowerment, allowing good to take root in his name.
