1
12
289
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/4b7b631c511eeb2032248d5f0498f011.pdf
58871506ff384009487f70b9f14c3221
PDF Text
Text
,.
PEP PER, HAM I L TON 2\, S C H r::: ET Z
A TTO R NEYS A T LA W
....A MES .. . MOO R E
.JOH N B . HU F" F"~ K ER
AON A t 0 M . OI E TRIC H
H . L A W R E N CE F-"CX
R ICHAR D M . R I I"4D L E.R
ALL EN K . H AL P E RI N
ER NE ST Q . W I L,SON
P E"'i'E R C . W I L Ll AM ~
12 3 SO UT H B RO AD S TREET
/ 776 F STREET , N . W .
4
WASH/N GTON , D. C.
PHl LAD ELP H IA , F A . 19 10 9
(2 15 ) 545 -1234
20006
S U ITE 40 0
10 SO U 1'H M Ail " ET SC; L; A Rt: .
HA R R I S B U R G , PA . 17 10 8
(71 7) 23 3 - e 4 8 3
( 2 0 2) 46 7-6 5 00
BARB A RA ~ . W A S H S URN
DRAFT
S.
2475, A BILL TO A11E ND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954
TO r-10DIFY
7 H:G
CHARITAB LE DIS TRIBUTION
REQUIREME NTS I MP OSED UPON P RIV ATE FOUNDATIONS
(TE L
~n NH1U M
DI STRIB UTI ON RULE OF SECTION 49 42)
Written Statement and Oral Testimony Presented
to The Senate Cummitt e e on Finance
on Thursday, April 8, 1976
By the Ad Hoc Cor.unittee on Famil y Found ations:
The HOITilel Foundat ion
The Kellogg Found ation
The Kresge Foundation
The Lilly
Endo~nent,
Inc.
The Mac lellan Foundation
The Pew Memori a l Trust
The Jo s eph B. Wh itehea d Foundation
PLEASE REPLY TO WASH IN GTON O FFICE
�- 15 (
"
A staff established to p:::-occss applications for $1,500,000
will be inadequate for $2,100,000;
likewise, the expectations
of charity built on"a year when $2,100,000
not be met when a lower year follows.
lS
distributed will
One of the frequent
challenges to the foundation is to engage in new and innovative
activities.
This means fuller exploration of the nontraditional
applications and probably
grant.
a
longer time between application and
At any rate, the fluctuating minimums -- particularly
at an unrealistic level -- will obviously be counter-productive
to any d esize to get into fields requiring greater attention per
application.
This serves to prevent foundation managers from
being efficient and frustrates the objectives of foundation
grants.
The final member of our panel presenting testimony is
Drc Russell Mawby,
Creek. Mi ch i g a n .
President of the Kellogg Foundation, Battle
�- 16
I amR
u
s
s
e
l
lG
. M
awby
, P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
to
fTh
eK
e
l
l
o
g
g F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,
·B
a
t
t
l
eC
r
e
e
k
, M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
.
Ii
n
t
e
n
dt
oi
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
ea
n
ds
umm
a
r
i
z
e
t
h
ec
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
so
ft
h
i
sg
r
o
u
p
. F
o
rt
h
i
sp
u
r
p
o
s
e
, Iw
i
l
lu
s
e
t
h
ee
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
eo
ft
h
eK
e
l
l
o
g
g F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
ns
i
n
c
ei
t
i
si
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
eo
ft
h
eg
r
o
u
po
ff
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
ss
u
b
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
gt
ot
h
i
ss
t
a
t
em
e
n
t
.
I
t
sf
o
u
n
d
e
rr
e
a
l
i
z
e
da t
o
t
a
lt
a
xb
e
n
e
f
i
t(
i
n
c
om
e
,g
i
f
ta
n
d
e
s
t
a
t
e
)o
fa
p
p
r
o
x
im
a
t
e
l
y$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0o
ng
i
f
t
sw
h
i
c
ht
o
d
a
yh
a
v
ea
t
o
t
a
lf
a
i
rm
a
r
k
e
t.v
a
l
u
eo
fa
p
p
r
o
x
im
a
t
e
l
y$
5
9
0m
i
l
l
i
o
n
.
Th
e
t
o
t
a
lo
ft
h
e
s
ea
s
s
e
t
sa
r
em
a
i
n
t
a
i
ne
do
nb
e
h
a
l
fo
ft
h
eF
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
ni
nw
h
a
tm
ay b
es
a
i
dt
ob
eD
IO s
e
p
a
rR
t
ep
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
s
,w
h
i
c
h
Is
h
a
l
lr
e
f
e
rt
oa
s "K
e
l
l
o
g
g
"a
n
d "D
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
i
e
d
.11- KE
'
l
l
o
g
g c
o
n
.s
i
s
t
se
n
t
i
r
e
l
yo
fK
e
l
l
o
g
g
- Comp
any s
t
o
c
x'1
,"1t
ha v
a
l
ue o
f $543
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
.
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
i
e
dc
o
n
s
i
s
t
so
fs
t
o
c
k
s
,
_b
o
n
d
sa
n
do
t
her in
ter
e
s
t
b
e
a
r
i
n
go
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
sa
n
dp
a
sa
na
p
p
r
o
xim
a
t
ev
a
l
u
eo
f$
4
8m
i
llion
.
K
e
l
l
o
g
gh
a
sc
o
n
s
i
s
t
.
e
n
t
l
you
t
.v
-p
erf
'oxm
ed D
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
i
e
dw
hi
.
chw
as
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
dt
om
e
a
s
u
r
e t
h
ef
r
u
i
t
so
fd
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ap
r
i
n
c
i
pQ
lc
o
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
nr
e
f
l
e
c
t
e
di
nt
h
eP
e
t
e
r
s
o
n R
ep
o
r
t
w
a
s t
h
a
tt
h
ep
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
so
fp
r
i
v
a
t
e
o ndt ~ on
h
a
dn
o
tp
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
t
h
er
a
t
eo
fr
e
t
u
r
nwhic
hi
t
v
i
a
st
h
o
u
g
h
tt
oha
v
eb
e
e
nprod
uced
b
ym
u
t
u
a
l f
u
n
d
s
. By a
n
ym
e
a
s
u
r
e o
fr
e
t
u
r
n
,t
h
eg
r
o
up h
a
so
u
t
-
.p
r
o
d
u
c
e
dm
u
t
u
a
l f
u
n
d
sf
o
r
·
t
h
ep
e
r
i
o
dcovered b
yt
h
eP
e
t
e
r
s
o
n
�- ~"I
-
R
e
p
o
r
ta
n
dh
a
sc
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
dt
odo s
os
i
n
c
e
. F
o
re
x
am
p
l
e
,I
nt
h
e
l
a
s
ts
i
xy
e
a
r
st
h
eK
e
l
l
o
g
gF
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
'
si
n
c
om
e
,
e
~
o
ft
h
e
'
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nT
r
u
s
t
'
sh
o
l
d
i
n
g
si
nt
h
eK
e
l
l
o
g
g Comp
any
, ha
sc
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
t
ob
es
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
yg
r
e
a
t
e
rt
h
a
ni
t
w
o
u
l
d h
a
v
eb
ee
n ha
di
t
sn
b
e
e
nd
e
r
i
v
e
de
n
t
i
r
e
l
y
w
a
s
~
p
e
r
c
e
n
tf
o
r
o~
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
i
e
d
n o~e
n e t~ent .
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
df
r
omt
~
o~e
Th
ei
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
K
e
l
l
o
g
g h
o
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
sc
o
n
p
a
r
e
dt
oa
ni
n
c
r
e
a
s
eo
f4
.
7p
e
r
c
e
n
to
nt
h
eF
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
'
s
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
i
e
dp
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
. I
ti
so
u
ro
p
i
n
i
o
nt
h
a
tt
h
es
a
l
eo
f
K
e
l
l
o
g
ga
n
dt
h
ed
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
no
ff
u
n
d
sw
o
u
l
d r
e
s
u
J
ti
na
g
r
e
a
t
e
rh
a
n
d
i
c
a
pt
om
e
e
t
i
n
g t
h
ep
a
y
o
u
t
e
e~ ent
o
ft
h
eT
ax
R
e
fo
rm Act
,o
f.
1969a
n
dr
e
s
u
l
ti
na l
ow
e
rr
e
t
u
r
nt
oc
h
a
r
i
t
yo
v
e
r
t
h
ey
e
a
r
s
.
N
o
to
n
l
yw
a
s t
h
eP
e
t
e
r
s
o
nR
e
p
o
r
ti
n
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
an
ce
,b
u
t
~
p
r
e@
i
s
eo
fa
~
~
re
g
ard t
o
p
a
y
o
u
tb
e
i
n
gg
o
o
d.fo
r
c
h
a
r
it
yi
sw
ro
n
c
, E
'o
re
x
am
p
l
e
,h
a
dt
h
emi
.ni
.
rn
um di
.
.
st
J
i
bl
l
t
:
i
o
n
r
u
l
eb
e
e
ni
ne
f
f
e
c
t
,a
t6 p
e
r
c
e
n
t
,f
r
om1934 whe
nt
h
eFo n~ t n
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d2
2
1
,
0
0
0s
h
a
r
e
so
o ~
n , f
a
i
rm
a
r
k
e
t v
a
l
u
e
.$
3
/
,
5
7
0
,
0
0
0I
t
h
ef
o
1
1m
'
l
i
n
gw
o
u
l
dh
a
v
eo
cc
u
z
e
de
(1
) F
rom S
e
p
t
em
b
e
r1
,1
9
3
4
,t
h
r
o
u
g
hAug
u
st 3
1
, 1972
,
t
h
eF
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nm
ad
e a
na
c
t
u
a
ld
i
s
tL
i
b
u
t
i
o
no
f$
2
0
3
,
0
9
2
,
1
9
6a
n
d
i
f
t
h
em
in
imum d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nr
u
l
eh
a
db
e
e
na
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
,d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
so
f$
2
4
2
,
7
0
6
,
8
1
1
o~
a
ni
n
c
r
e
a
s
eo
f$
3
9
,
6
1
4
,
6
1
5
)w
o
u
l
d h
a
v
e
b
e
e
nm
ad
e
;
(2
) Th
eF
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nw
o
u
l
dh
a
v
eh
a
dt
os
e
l
lt
h
ee
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
to
f8
,
8
1
3
,
9
2
8s
h
a
r
e
sw
i
.
t
.h.«ma
r
k
et
;v
a
l
u
eo
f $214
,8
:
:>9
,495"
h
u
s
,
't
h
eP
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
'
s
'
h
o
l
d
i
n
gw
o
u
l
d h
a
v
eb
e
e
nr
e
d
u
c
e
dt
o
.
and
,t
�-18 am
a
i
k
c
tv
a
l
u
eo
f$
2
2
6
,OG
l
,
3
5
5
;
a
n
d
(3
) Th
eh
i
g
h
e
r~et
n
t
oc
h
a
r
i
t
yo
f$
3
9
,
6
1
4
,
6
1
5
wou
ld h
a
v
ec
o
s
t$
2
1
4
.
8m
i
l
l
i
o
n t
h
e
r
e
b
yr
e
d
u
c
i
n
gt
h
ec
u
r
r
e
n
ts
i
z
e
o
ft
h
eP
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n by
l~o t
5
0p
e
r
c
e
n
ta
n
di
n1973 t
h
ed
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
-
t
i
o
nu
n
d
e
rt
h
er
e
d
u
c
e
da
s
s
e
t
sw
ou
ld b
e$
1
0
,
0
16
,
2
5
7r
a
t
h
e
rt
h
a
n
$
1
9
,
5
3
5
,
3
9
9w
h
i
c
h i
t
w
i
l
ld
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
.
A
f
t
e
rt
h
r
e
ey
e
a
r
st
h
e
r
eh
a
sb
e
e
nt
im
et
oe
x
am
i
n
e how
s
e
c
t
i
o
n4942 w
i
l
lo
p
e
r
a
t
et
ou
n
d
e
rD
i
n
eo
v
e
r
a
l
lf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
ng
r
a
n
t
s
a
n
dt
h
e
r
eh
a
sb
e
e
nt
h
eo
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
yt
of
u
r
t
h
e
re
x
aM
i
n
et
h
e
t
i
o
n
so
ft
h
eP
e
t
e
r
s
o
nR
e
p
o
r
t
.
s
u
b
s
cY
i
b
i
n
gt
ot
h
i
s
t te~ent
~
F
o
rt
h
i
sp
u
r
p
o
se
,t
h
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
v
eh
a
ca
ni
n
d
e
pe
n
d
e
n
ts
t
u
d
y
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
dby D
r
. t
to
rm
anB
. T
u
r
e
. ·Th
ef
i
n
d
i
n
g
sa
n
dc
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
:
;o
f
t
h
a
tr
e
p
o
r
t
,a
sb
r
i
e
f
l
ysu
rmnar
i
.
z
e
di
ni
t
sow
nJ
cmgu2
.
g
e
,a
.
r
e:
"
F
i
r
s
t
,a
n
ym
in
iEmn d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nr
u
l
ew
h
i
c
h
i
g
n
o
r
e
st
h
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
'
s ra
te o
fr
e
t
u
r
nw
i
l
l
h
a
v
ea h
ig
h
l
yd
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
,d
isc
rim
in
at
o
r
y
a
n
dp
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
~
o
in
p
a
c
t on f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d on t
h
e
i
rl
o
n
g
t
e
r
nc
a
p
a
c
i
t
yt
os
u
p
p
o
r
t
c
h
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
.
S
e
c
o
n
d
,t
h
ec
o
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
ntha
tt
h
ei
n
v
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
p
e
r
f
o
rm
a
n
c
eo
f t~ nd t on i
sre
la
ti
v
e
ly p
o
o
r
i
sb
a
s
e
d on i
n
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
ei
n
f
o
rma
ti
o
nan
d in
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
es
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l~ e
e
t
h
er
e
c
o
r
d
s
o
ff
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sfo
rw
h
i
c
hd
a
t
aw
a
s a
v
a
i
l
a
ble
i
nt
h
ep
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
no
ft
h
i
sr
e
p
o
r
tc
e
r
t
a
i
n
l
y
d
on
o
ts
u
p
p
o
r
tt
h
i
s ont~nt on,
T
h
i
r
d
, no s
o
u
nd e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e~
d
~ ed t
os
u
p
p
o
r
tt
h
ev
i
eH t
h
a
tt
h
ea
l
l
e
g
e
d
l
yp
o
o
ri
n
v
e
s
t
r
:
1
e
n
t
p
e
r
f
o
rm
a
n
c
eo
ff
o
u
n
c
a
t
i
o
n
si
sr
e
l
a
t
e
dt
ot
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
no
ft
h
e
i
rin
v
e
s
tm
e
n
ta
s
s
e
t
s
.
F
o
u
r
t
h
,i
t
i
sn
e
i
t
h
e
rrea
l
i
s
t
i
cn
o
rr
e
as
o
n
a
h
l
et
oaSSUD
et
h
a
ta m
ini
.
r
n
umdis
c
r
i
buti
.o
r
i
r
u
l
ew
i
l
lr
e
s
u
l
ti
n
.
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
ti
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
si
n
t
h
er
a
t
eo
fr
e
t
u
r
non f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
ni
n
v
c
s
t
7
l
e
n
c
s
.
�•
F
i
n
a
l
l
y
,t
h
e(
t
h
i
s
)r
e
p
o
r
t
'
c
o
n
c
l
u
d
c
,
,
't ~t t
h
e
t
a
xs
a
v
i
n
g
sa
l
l
e
g
e
d
l
yre
a
l
i
z
e
dby t
h
o
s
ee
s
c
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
gfou
n
da
c
i
.on
s are, i
na
l
lL
ikeL
ihood,
v
e
r
y sm
a
l
l
. F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nd
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
st
oc
h
a
r
i
t
y
h
a
v
er
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
da s
i
z
e
a
b
l
e ~o nt o
fb
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
et
ot
h
ef
o
r
e
g
o
n
er
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
.
"
F
i
n
a
l
l
y
,t
h
eP
e
t
e
r
s
o
nR
e
p
o
r
ta
s
s
um
e
dt
h
a
tt
h
ec
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
sw
h
i
c
h af
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nn
o
r
n
a
l
l
ys
u
p
p
o
r
t
sw
i
l
ln
o
tr
i
s
ei
n
~o t
a
n
yf
a
s
t
e
rt
h
a
nt
h
eg
e
n
e
r
a
lr
a
t
eo
fi
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
na
n
df
o
rt
h
a
t
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
~ed
ar
a
t
eo
fi
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
no
f2 p
e
r
c
e
n
t
. Th
eR
e
p
o
r
t
'
s
.a
s
su
I
!
'
.
p
t
i
o
ni
sw
ro
r
i
c, f
o
ri
t
c
om
p
l
e
t
e
l
yd
i
s
r
e
g
a
r
c
3
.
st
h
ef
a
c
tt
h
a
t
t
h
eo
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
ss
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
db
yf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sh
a
v
el
i
t
t
l
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
fs
im
i
l
a
rg
a
i
n
si
np
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
F
rom t
h
ef
o
r
e
g
o
i
n
g
, tw
ot
h
i
n
g
sa
r
ea
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
: On
eI t
h
e
u
n
d
e
r
l
y
i
n
sp
r
e
n
i
s
eo
ft
h
e6 p
e
r
c
e
n
tm
i
.n
i
.
rnum d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nr
u
l
e
i
sp
r
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
du
p
o
nf
a
l
s
eassu
rnpt
.
i
.on
si a
n
dt
.wo, t
h
i
sr
u
l
emus
tb
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
di
fp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sa
r
et
o
ont n ~
t
ob
e pe
rm
i
tL
e& t
o
s
e
r
v
et
h
e
i
rf
u
n
c
t
i
o
ni
nt
h
es
u
p
p
o
r
to
fc
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
eu
n
de
r
t
ak
i
n
g
s
,
I
ft
h
i
si
sn
o
td
o
n
e
,{
ti
sc
l
e
a
rt
h
a
tt
h
ep
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
ss
e
t
f
o
r
t
hi
nt
h
eP
e
t
e
r
s
o
n Re o ,
~ a
n
di
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
di
nS
e
c
t
i
o
n4942
.
w
i
l
l im
p
a
i
rt
h
ee
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
so
fa
l
lf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sa
n
de
l
im
i
n
at
e
m
any o
ft
h
emt
ot
h
ed
e
t
r
i
n
e
n
to
fc
h
a
r
i
t
y
. T
h
i
sp
o
s
i
t
i
o
ni
sn
o
t
o
n
l
ys
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
db
yt
h
eg
r
o
u
p
s'
a
c
c
om
p
l
i
s
h
I
:
'
.e
n
t
sa
n
de
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
eI h
u
t
b
yt
h
eT
u
r
es
tU
d
yw
h
i
c
h i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
st
h
a
tp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sc
a
n
g
i
v
eab
e
t
t
e
rr
e
t
u
r
np
e
rd
o
l
l
a
rt
oc
h
a
r
i
t
yt
h
e
nt
h
eF
e
d
e
r
a
l
Goverme
nt.
N
oo
n
eh
a
ss
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
di
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
gt
h
eG
o
v
e
r
nm
e
n
t
'
s T
o
l
ei
n
'
a
d
v
a
n
c
i
n
gp
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
y
,w
h
i
c
h i
sp
r
e
c
i
s
e
l
yw
h
a
tw
i
l
lh
a
p
p
e
n
i
ft
h
e6 p
e
r
c
e
n
tr
u
l
eo
fS
e
c
t
i
o
n 4942 i
sn
o
tr
e
v
i
s
e
dd
ow
nw
a
r
d
.
�.
.'~, L~ ~ ~
. ~.
"
. --- r-
__
~.
Ap
r
i
l 1 ~ 1976
.~
, ,
.~
.
.
.
.
.
-
,~ . , , . ~~. '
:'
,
'
:
.
.
~l . ~ .
.
.
.
.
.
-.
..
.
_
.7
'
-
.
._
_ - _~ }::. ~
"
1~ ~
,
~~
H
on
.R
u
sse1 B
. Long
U
n
ited S
ta
t
e
sS
en
a
t
e
2
17 O
l
dS
en
a
te O
ff
ice B
u
i
l
d
i
ng
t
on
,D
.C. 20510
W
a
sh
ing
~
.
c
", -
."---.
- -·
·
!
;
;
t,.:
~
"
j
. ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~
.~
•
•
~ ",,,, ,
----
-
.
-
.~
-.- .
-
., "
.
~
,
~
~
~ "" _
_
~. .
.,~ .. .
__ r.1>-_
1
-
.~
\
::-":","
=-,.
,
.
J --;.
-
~
..
~"
~
':
-;
D
ea
rS
ena
t
o
r Lo
ng
:
A
s on
eo
fth
ep
r
i
v
a
t
efound
a
t
i
o
n
srep
r
es
en
t
e
dinthe A
dH
oc
C
omm
ittee onF
am
i
ly Found
a
ti
o
n
s
,w
eapp
rc
i
a
t
ed t
h
eop
p
o
r
tu
n
i
t
y
o
fte
s
tify
ingb
e
for
et
h
eS
en
a
te C
onmittec onF
in
an
c
e on A
p
ri
l8
.
W
e w
e
r
ep
l
e
a
sed t
h
a
tyouat
t
en
d
ed th
e o~t t e e s
e
s
s
i
o
n
st
h
a
t
d
ay wh
en s
t
a
t
e
me
n
t
sreg
a
rd
ingp
ri
v
a
t
eph
i
l
an
t
h
ro
py ~~ d p
u
b
l
i
c
ch
a
r
i
tie
sw
e
r
ep
r
e
s
e
n
ted.
I
ff
u
r
t
h
e
rd
e
ta
i
led i
n
f
o
rm
a
t
i
o
n ou1db
eh
e
l
p
f
ultoyou and
you
r Comm
i
t
t
e
e int
h
o
s
ede
l
i
be
ra
t
i
o
n
s, p
l
e
a
sele
tme know.
T
h
es
i
tu
a
ti
o
n nowcon
fron
tingp
r
iv
a
t
efoun
d
a
tion
sis ev
en
mor
eu
rg
e
n
ti
ul
i
gh
to
fth r
e
cen
t n o~~ e en t by t
h
eT
r
e
as
u
r
J
tha
tt
h
er
a
t
eimpo
s
edfo
rt
h
ec
u
r
r
e
n
ty
e
a
rv
i
l
lb
e 63
/4 pe
r
cen
t
.
l
{
yb
e
st p
e
rson
a
lr
eg
a
rd
s
.
S
in
ce
re
ly,
.
•
RGM
:
l
g
r
.. 1
•.,.1-'
.
.
/P
"
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby Papers
Subject
The topic of the resource
Charities
Family foundations--Michigan
Philanthropy and society
Description
An account of the resource
The Russell Mawby papers document the life and work of Michigan-born Russell Mawby from 1928 to the present. Mawby was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for twenty-five years and is recognized for his work in the area of philanthropy in the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
The digital collection includes a selection of field notes, speeches, itineraries, and other materials.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell G.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby Papers (JCPA-01). Johnson Center for Philanthropy Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1938-2012
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Source
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby papers, JCPA-01</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01_1976-04-08_RMawby_SPE
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby testimony on the bill to amend Internal Revenue Code of 1954
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell
Description
An account of the resource
Testimony given for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation on the effects of modifying the charitable distribution requirements imposed upon private foundations, April 8, 1976.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Grand Valley State University Special Collections & University Archives
Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philanthropy and society
Family foundations--Michigan
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Charities
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Legislation
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1976-04-08
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/1d95be1b5c97a0f7cd525a2a050f9164.pdf
091f6f4ebc1f241ad13495591965b010
PDF Text
Text
...
ORAL STATEHENT
BY
RUSSELL G. MAWBY
I.
INTRODUCTION
~M..-
~~~~~~ s
Russell Mawby,
President of the
W.K. Kellogg Foundation of Battle Creek, Michigan.
I am appearing this morning as Chairman of the Legislation
and Regulations Committee of the Council on FouJdations, a
nonprofit, membership organization whose membe D'
some
~ Af o un d a t i o n s from across the country.
include
~h
~n
W--<-
appreciate s the opportunity to testify this morning on S.
464, a bill of vital importance to foundations and their
charitable beneficiaries.
Wi t h
~he-5tibeGmm4 t~ee~~ermi s sio
I will focus on the income payout issue; the bill also
~~
includes three useful technical changes. - These are addressed
in my prepared statement.
The Importance of Foundations
As the members of the panel have already
ges
e~
,,;.,....~c_
' -
foundations playa special and vital role in re-
sponding to the needs of our society"-.f
e . /q u e
react quicKly to emerging social concerns; they
forefront of adva ncing medical and scientific
research; they nurture important new institutions; and
y bar after year they also meet basic needs of the American
L--:--
. t he
i
peop I e 1n
e1r
commun1. t'1es.
�- 2 Safeguards on Foundation Performance
To insure that foundations faithfully discharge
their public trust, Congress has
~
enacted a compre-
hensive and detailed set of rules regulating every
aspect of foundation operations.
In setting up this system
of regulations, Congress explicitly and decisively rejected
proposals to require foundations to go out of existence
after a fixed period.
In particular, the income payout
requirement was specifically not designed either to erode
the purchasing power of foundations or to restrict foundation
investment policy.
Impact of Present Law on Foundations
Unfortunately, the long-term ability of foundations
to continue to support the vast array of charitable activities to which they are committed is in serious doubt.
Why?
Because as a result of the high inflation and high interest
rates of recent years, the requirement of present law that
foundations distribute their entire current income is
contributing to rapid erosion of foundation assets and is
distorting foundations'
investment policies.
Present law requires foundations to distribute
annually the greater of 5% of the value of their investment
assets or their entire current income.
The basic objective
of this payout rule -- to insure that every foundation makes
�-
3 -
a substantial current distribution to charity -- is sound.
On the other hand, under current economic conditions the
requirement that foundations distribute their entire current
~
-k
income
~~~
-~~ -~~~
delayed death sentence. ~
When Congress enacted the income payout rule,
current yields on a well-managed, balanced portfolio were
significantly below 5%; inflation had averaged bet e~n 2% ~
a
3% over the preceding decade; and stocks were growing in
value much more rapidly than inflation.
Today interest
rates on debt securities like Treasury bills and certificates
of deposit range from
~~~~~
13% to
~most
17%; inflation
persists at 10% to 12%; and real stock values have declined
sharply over the last decade.
Under these radically different economic conditions, the income payout requirement makes it virtually
impossible for a foundation to preserve its future grant
capability.
While colleges, universities, and every other
class of charitable organization can take advantage of the
high yields available on bonds and other debt investments to
help preserve their charitable purchasing power, foundations
cannot.
If a foundation continues to invest in a diversified
{po r t f o liO including substantial debt holdings, it can expect
�- 4 to earn high current yields, but will be required to distribute
the entire yield and consequently can do nothing to offset
inflation.
If inflation persists, a foundation with such
holdings will find itself shrunk to 1/3 of its present -already diminished -- size in 30 years.
On the other hand, a foundation which wishes to
preserve its future capacity to serve its charitable beneficiaries must skew its investment decisions to select its
holdings largely from those which have low current yields.
Unfortunately such investment strategies also carry significantly greater risk than traditional, more conservative
and more balanced foundation investments.
For example, many
investment advisors are urging foundations to buy "growth"
".-
stocks, real estate, commodities, and stock of foreign
.",
corporations, or at least to invest in securities with
(./
/"
nominal yields well below 5%.
In a recent study (attached
to my full statement) Professor Peter Williamson of the
Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth concluded that this
investment strategy was simply too risky for most foundations.
Consequently, the income payout rule presents
foundations with a genuine dilemma.
Traditional investment
strategies result in rapid erosion of grant capability while
alternative strategies involve inappropriate risks.
As a result of these factors, foundation assets
in real dollars have fallen dramatically
~~
widespread termination of foundations
~
there has been
Meanwh "ie, the
rate of creation of new foundations has fallen dramatically __
+-
�-
S. 464:
5 -
The Solution
S. 464 is designed to cope squarely with these
problems by amending the law to remove the requirement
that foundations distribute their entire current income,
while leaving in effect the requirement that they distribute
at least 5% of their assets' value each year for charitable
/
uses.
The maintenance of the 5% distribution rule
represents an appropriate balance between foundations'
immediate support of current charitable enterprises and the
very real need to maintain the ability of foundations to
continue that support in the future.
reasonable one.
n ee ~
.,~ ~
~
ro esso~
i
The 5 % level is a
1 ~~~
i mson~ ~
indicates that, over the period 1926 to 1979, the real
return on a balanced portfolio s u eh a s
h os e
s e~ e c t e
c o l l e ges and univers j,t ::i:e-s was approximately 4.5%.
t
by
In more
recent years the real return has been significantly below
that figure.
Consequently, a payout requirement of 5% fixes
foundation distributions to charity somewhat above the full
real return on their assets.
On the other hand, by eliminating the income
payout rule, S. 464 eliminates an artificial constraint
imposed on foundation investment decisions by the tax law,
and removes
unintended by
Congress in
Foundations
464 as a way of protecting the lon g
ability of foundations to serve society.
t~
�S
t
a
t
em
e
n
tb
y
MAR 25198
1
RUSSELL G
. MAWBY
C
h
a
i
rm
a
n
, L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
na
n
dR
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
sC
omm
i
t
t
e
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
lo
nF
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
S
u
b
c
omm
i
t
t
e
eo
nT
a
x
a
t
i
o
na
n
dD
e
b
tM
a
n
a
g
em
e
n
t
C
omm
i
t
t
e
eo
nF
i
n
a
n
c
e
U
n
i
t
e
dS
t
a
t
e
sS
e
n
a
t
e
1
0
:
0
0
a
.m
.
,M
a
r
c
h 3
1
,1
9
8
1
~
shin ton, D
.C
.
�SUMMARY
Foundations playa special and vital role in
responding to the needs of our society.
Unfortunately, the
ability of foundations to continue to support charitable
activities is in serious doubt.
From 1972 to 1979 the real
value of foundation assets fell by nearly 40%, and from 1970
to 1979 foundation grants fell from 9.2% to 5.2% of all
charitable contributions.
As a result of high interest rates and high
inflation, the requirement of current law that foundations
distribute their entire current income has contributed
significantly to this erosion of foundations" ability to
serve the public. While all other classes of charitable
organizations can use the high yields available on certificates of deposit and other debt securities to try to preserve their charitable purchasing power against the inroads
of inflation, foundations cannot. Consequently, foundations
must either accept the rapid erosion of their grant capability
or skew their investment decisions in favor of more risky
investment strategies offering the chance o .c i~
appreciation.
.
I
Neither of these damaging results was intended by
Congress when it enacted the payout rule in 1969.
In :fact,
in 1969 Congress specifically rejected a proposal to limpose
a fixed duration on foundations' period of e istence~
S. 464 would amend the payout requirement .
to eliminate the damaging effects of current law. Specifically, S. 464 would eliminate the requirement that foundations distribute their entire current income while leaving
in effect the requirement that they distribute annually 5%
of the value of their investment assets.
By maintaining the
5% payout requirement the bill would insure that all foundations continue to make substantial current charitable distributions.
Indeed, 5% is more than historical real returns
on a balanced investment portfolio. At the same time, by
eliminating the requirement that foundations distribute
their entire current income, S. 464 would give foundations
the investment flexibility which they need if they are to
preserve their long-term ability to serve the public.
�Statement by
RUSSELL G. MAWBY
before
Subcommittee on Taxation and Debt Management
of the
U.S. Senate Finance Committee
10:00 a.m., March 31, 1981
Washington, D.C.
S. 464:
I.
THE FOUNDATION PAYOUT
REQUIREMENT
INTRODUCTION
My name is Russell Mawby.
I am Chairman of the
Legislation and Regulations Committee of the Council on
Foundations (the "Council").,
The Council on Foundations
is a nonprofit, membership organization whose members
include some 900 private foundations from across the
country.
The Council appreciates the Subcommittee's
invitation to testify on S. 464, a bill of vital importance
to foundations and their charitable beneficiaries.
Current law requires that private foundations
annually distribute to operating charities the greater of
5% of the value of their investment assets or their total
current income, that is, total income less long-term
capital gains.
Because of persistent high interest rates
�-
2 -
and high rates of inflation, the requirement that foundations pay income above 5% of asset value seriously distorts
their investment decisions and reduces the long-term capacity
of foundations to support charitable work.
s.
464 would eliminate the requirement that all
income be paid out, but would not alter the present rule
that foundations must each year distribute for charitable
purposes at least 5% of their asset value.
Because S. 464
preserves this 5% distribution requirement of present law,
it insures that foundations will continue substantial current
support of charitable activities.
At the same time, it
would give foundations the investment flexibility which they
so desperately need if they are to preserve their continued
ability to respond to human needs.
II.
WHY WE WILL NEED FOUNDATIONS IN THE FUTURE
Foundations contributed 9.2% of all charitable
gifts from private sources in 1970; by 1979 they accounted
for only 5.2% of such gifts.
This diminution in the
capacity of foundations affects the entire charitable sector.
Foundations give charitable, educational, cultural and
scientific service organizations an alternative source of
funds to government support.
Foundations provide venture
capital to the philanthropic sector by funding new ideas
and new enterprises and by helping new agencies and new groups
�-
to gain a toe-hold.
3 -
Foundations fund many of the sector's
research and development efforts, and use their relatively
flexible resources to meet society's emergencies and its
newly perceived needs.
Accordingly, in the measure that
foundation grant capacity is less in the future than it is
now, operating agencies and philanthropy as a whole will be
more vulnerable, less able to react to emergency, less able
to take advantage of opportunity, and less able to plan for
the future.
The early years of foundation giving in the United
States offer dramatic testimony to the service foundations
render.
"I
In those years, foundation funds helped free the
South of hookworm, virtually eliminated malaria and yellow
fever from l the United States, and reformed medical education
to rank American health care wi th the world's best.
I
In later years foundation funding of science
supported Goddard's early research in rocket engineering,
the construction of the first nuclear accelerator, the
development of the electron microscope and the oscilloscope,
and research leading to our current knowledge of DNA which
some observers term the single most significant advance in
biology in this century.
When television emerged, private foundations
recognized its educational potential and gave massive
�- 4 support.
All 282 public TV stations received foundation
funds for equipment, operation and other services, and one
foundation alone committed $293 million to public TV in the
25 years beginning in 1952.
Following World War II, foundations mirrored
the society in responding to the aspirations of Blacks and
other minorities to achieve full status as citizens and
participants in the bounty of our society.
There was a
trend from research toward action in housing, education,
employment and inner-city problems.
As the decade of the 80's begins, foundations seem
to be emphasizing regional approaches, working toward cooperation among themselves and with government.
growing emphasis on
comm ni~
There is a
development and the preserva-
tion and furtherance of neighborhoods and communities.
At the same time, foundations have continued to
support research at private universities and have sought to
strengthen traditional institutions in their role as private
alternatives to government-funded institutions.
Foundations
provide technical assistance and financial support to
community groups of every kind; they grant funds for the
special needs of the local hospital and the local school;
they provide services for the preschooler and for the elderly.
Foundations continue to support art and cultural activities
as well as traditional social service organizations serving
youths, the aged and all other groups in our society.
�- 5 -
The need for foundations to support innovative
charitable activities will be as great tomorrow as it is
today.
It would, therefore, be shortsighted to apply so
many foundation resources to current problems at the sacrifice
of the capability of foundations to respond in the future as
they have in the past.
What foundations have done in the past suggests
what foundations can do in the future -- if they have
sufficient resources.
III. FOUNDATION GRANT CAPABILITY IS RAPIDLY ERODING
However, the rapid erosion of foundation grant
capability in recent years threatens to eliminate foundations
as a vital part of American philanthropy.
This decline
in the real value of foundation assets, and thus foundation
grant capability, is documented by data presented in the
most recent edition of The Foundation Directory and
summarized in the chart on page 6.
The chart shows the
changes, for all foundations with assets of over $1 million,
in both the nominal and real value of assets over the
period from 1965 through 1977.
These foundations account
for 93% of all foundation assets and 92% of all foundation
grants.
As the chart indicates, foundations enjoyed a
significant increase in both the nominal and real value of
their assets from 1965 through 1972.
However, from 1972
to 1977 the nominal value of foundation assets increased
only slightly and the real value fell by 29.2%.
�6
�- 7 While comprehensive data such as that contained
in The Foundation Directory are not available for the period
since 1977, data collected by the Council on Foundations in a
recent survey of its members indicate that the decline in
the real value of foundation assets has continued.
From
1977 through 1979 the real value of the assets of the
foundations surveyed declined by approximately 11%.
Thus
over the eight year period from 1972 through 1979 the real
value of foundation assets fell by almost 40%.
If the
erosion continues at this rate, in twenty years the ability
of foundations to support charitable activities will be only
a quarter of what it is today.
As these figures suggest, what is at stake is not
the continued existence of
~
particular foundation, but
rather the continued ability of foundations as a whole to
support important charitable works.
Because these figures
take into account gifts of additional assets to both
existing and newly created foundations, they demonstrate
dramatically that the flow of new capital into the foundation
sector has been insufficient to offset the erosion of the
existing assets of foundations.
In fact, as a result of the
restrictions imposed on private foundations by the Tax
Reform Act of 1969, there has been very widespread termination
of foundations while the rate of creation of new foundations
has fallen dramatically.
This trend has been clearly documented
in a study prepared for the National Commission on Private
�- 8 Philanthropy and Public Needs, the results of which are summarized in the chart on page 9.
The study examined the rate
of creation and dissolution of foundations during the period
from 1968 through 1972 in twelve key states, which together
account for over 50% of all foundations.
It demonstrated a
sharp decline in the rate of creation of new foundations
from 1968 through 1970.
Over the same period, dissolutions of
private foundations increased dramatically, to a level far in
excess of the "birth rate" of new foundations.
This data on
foundation "birth" and "death" rates, as well as the sharp
decline in the real value of total foundation assets, clearly
show that new money flowing into the foundation sector is
insufficient to offset the rapid decline of existing foundation
assets.
IV.
CONGRESS NEVER INTENDED TO REDUCE FOUNDATION CAPABILITY
The experience of foundations throughout the country
indicates that the present requirement that foundations
distribute annually all of their income is a major factor
contributing to this alarming erosion of foundation grant
capability.
Indeed, foundations are being forced to spend
themselves out of existence by their inability to reinvest
any of the income they earn in excess of the 5% minimum
payout amount.
It is absolutely clear that Congress never
intended that the payout requirement have this effect.
During the decade preceding enactment of the
payout requirement in 1969, inflation averaged only 1.9%.
�-
9 -
Fo u nda t ions Esta bl ishe d/T erm inated, 1968· 1972 .
Cumu lativ e of 12 States
- - - - - New Foundations
Est ab lished
1,300
1.200
1,100
- - - - Existing Foundations
Terminated
,,
\
\
\
,,
,
\
\
1.000
900
\
,
\
\
\
\
,
\
800
700
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
600
,
\,
\
\
\
\
500
\
\
400
\
\
300
200
100
'68
\
'69
\
\
\
\
,-------- ......... --
\
'70
'71
- ........
' 72
Year
F rom "Anal ysis of F ou nd at ion Ce nter Da ta o n Crea tion, Di!<.<olution an d Recl assifIca tion
of Prrvare F ounda tions, " Washingto n, D.C. , Oct ober 25. 1974. p rep are d by Cap lin &.
Dry sdale and The F ou nda ti on Center in Washington, D.C.
�- 10 It is not surprising, therefore, that in formulating the
payout rule neither Treasury nor the Congress devoted significant attention to the effect which the required distribution
of all current income would have in a highly inflationary
environment.
The Congressional debate makes it clear,
however, that the Congress did not intend the payout rule to
require that foundations distribute at so fast a rate as to erode
the real value of foundation assets.
Senator Percy, the
leading sponsor of the minimum payout provision finally adopted,
made this clear in the following statement:
The percentage should not be so high as to amount
to a delayed death sentence. A foundation with a
well-managed investment portfolio should be able to
maintain its size and to stay abreast of changes in
the value of the dollar. However, the current needs
of our society for philanthropic funds are so
great that I consider it inappropriate to permit
foundations to grow, in size, without making an
adequate current contribution to philanthropy. A
payout percentage which will permit a well-managed
foundation portfolio to maintain its size while
making a productive contribution to charity,
represents an equitable balance between the pressure of society's current needs and the interest
of future generations.
Congo Rec., Nov. 24,
1969, S.15950 (Emphasis added.)
Congress has demonstrated a continuing commitment
to reevaluate the payout requirement to preserve this principle
of nan equitable balance."
For example, in 1976 Congress
concluded that the 6% minimum distribution requirement,
coupled with the requirement that this minimum distribution
percentage be adjusted annually to reflect any increases in
prevailing interest rates, "could have damaging effects on
the continuing viability of many foundations."
In response,
�-1
1-
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
sr
e
d
u
c
e
d
.
t
h
er
a
t
et
o5% a
n
de
l
im
i
n
a
t
e
dt
h
ep
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
da
n
n
u
a
la
d
j
u
s
tm
e
n
t
.
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
si
ni
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
nu
r
g
et
h
en
e
e
df
o
ra f
u
r
t
h
e
r
r
e
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
no
ft
h
ep
a
y
o
u
tr
u
l
e
,f
o
ru
n
d
e
ri
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
st
h
et
o
t
a
li
n
c
om
ep
a
y
o
u
tr
u
l
enow m
ak
e
s i
t
v
i
r
t
u
a
l
l
yim
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
ef
o
r"
af
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nw
i
t
h aw
e
l
l
-m
a
n
a
g
e
d
i
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
tp
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
.
.
.
t
om
a
i
n
t
a
i
n i
t
ss
i
z
ea
n
ds
t
a
y
a
b
r
e
a
s
to
fc
h
a
n
g
e
si
nt
h
ev
a
l
u
eo
ft
h
ed
o
l
l
a
r
.
" C
u
r
r
e
n
t
i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
nr
a
t
e
so
f 10% o
rmo
r
e m
ak
e n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
ya r
e
v
i
s
i
o
no
f
t
h
er
u
l
et
oe
l
im
i
n
a
t
et
h
er
e
q
u
i
r
em
e
n
tt
h
a
ta
l
li
n
c
om
eb
e
p
a
i
do
u
t
.
V
.
THE EFFECT OF THE PAYOUT REQU
IREMENT
INAN INFLAT
IONARY ENV
IRONMENT
I
ti
sc
l
e
a
rt
h
a
tC
o
n
g
r
e
s
sd
i
dn
o
ti
n
t
e
n
db
yt
h
e
i
n
c
om
ep
a
y
o
u
tr
u
l
et
oim
p
o
s
et
h
e"
d
e
l
a
y
e
dd
e
a
t
hs
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
"i
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
yr
e
n
o
u
n
c
e
di
ns
e
t
t
i
n
gt
h
ep
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
ep
a
y
o
u
t
.
Wh
en C
o
n
g
r
e
s
se
n
a
c
t
e
dt
h
ei
n
c
om
ep
a
y
o
u
tr
u
l
e
,c
u
r
r
e
n
ty
i
e
l
d
s
o
na w
e
l
l
-m
a
n
a
g
e
d
, b
a
l
a
n
c
e
dp
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
ow
e
r
e s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
b
e
l
ow 5%
;i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
nh
a
da
v
e
r
a
g
e
db
e
tw
e
e
n 2% a
n
d 3% o
v
e
rt
h
e
p
r
e
c
e
d
i
n
gd
e
c
a
d
e
;a
n
ds
t
o
c
k
sw
e
r
e g
r
ow
i
n
gi
nv
a
l
u
e mu
ch mo
r
e
r
a
p
i
d
l
yt
h
a
ni
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
. T
o
d
a
yi
n
t
e
r
e
s
tr
a
t
e
so
nd
e
b
ts
e
c
u
r
i
t
i
e
s
l
i
k
eT
r
e
a
s
u
r
yb
i
l
l
sa
n
dc
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
so
fd
e
p
o
s
i
tr
a
n
g
ef
r
om
w
e
l
lo
v
e
r 13% t
oa
lm
o
s
t17%
;i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
np
e
r
s
i
s
t
sa
t10% t
o12%
;
a
n
dr
e
a
ls
t
o
c
kv
a
l
u
e
sh
a
v
ed
e
c
l
i
n
e
ds
h
a
r
p
l
yo
v
e
rt
h
el
a
s
td
e
c
a
d
e
.
Th
ee
f
f
e
c
to
ft
h
ei
n
c
om
ep
a
y
o
u
tr
e
q
u
i
r
em
e
n
th
a
sc
h
a
n
g
e
d
�- 12 radically as the rate of inflation has risen from the 2%
level prevailing in the 1960's to the 10% or higher level of
today.
This change is attributable to the fact that in a
period of high inflation the nominal return on all investments
increases.
In the case of bonds and other debt securities,
this increased nominal return takes the form of higher
interest rates.
However, only a fraction of this higher
nominal return represents real income to the bondholder.
The remainder is in fact merely a replacement of that part
of the bondholder's capital consumed by inflation.
Yet the total
income payout rule requires that all this nominal income must
be distributed.
When examined in this perspective, it is clear that
a payout rule that requires foundations during a period of
inflation to distribute the entire nominal return on their
assets is the practical equivalent of a requirement that they
annually distribute a portion of their corpus.
The inevitable
effect of such a rule is to reduce their future grant capability
and, continued over time, to reduce them to virtual incapacity.
To the extent that foundations hold securities
that reflect current high interest rates such as certificates
of deposit, the present requirement that they distribute all
current income has precisely this effect.
The entire nominal
return on such debt investments generally comes in the form
of current income.
Foundations must distribute the entire
nominal return and can do nothing to offset the inflationary
erosion of their assets and their future grant capabilities.
�- 13 The manner in which rising inflation rates
fundamentally alter the effect of the income payout
requirement has been clearly demonstrated in a study
prepared by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation of Flint,
Michigan.
The Mott Foundation analyzed the effect of the
current income payout requirement on the performance of a
typical foundation portfolio with initial assets of
$1,000,000 under conditions of 2% inflation and 10%
inflation.
For purposes of the analysis it was assumed
that the foundation's assets would be invested 60% in
common stock and 40% in bonds -- a portfolio mix reflecting
the traditional investment strategy of foundations and
other endowed charities -- and that the rates of return
on these investments would be comparable to historic rates
of return over the period from 1926 through 1978.
The results of this analysis are presented
in the chart on page 14.
(Figures supporting the chart
are included as Appendix 1).
Example I assumes a 2% rate
of inflation and depicts the changes in both the purchasing
power of the foundation's grants and the real value of the
foundation's assets over a 30 year period.
This example
corresponds roughly to the conditions that prevailed in the
period before Congress enacted the 1969 payout
re
~rement.
Given this low rate of inflation, under present payout
rules the real value of the foundation's grants falls by
only $3,000 over 30 years -- from $50,000 to $47,000 -- and
�EXAMPLE I
T\\·o Pe rrcn r Inflation with Current Payout.
51 .0 00.000
1!l ilO
If
II I
199 0
S 48 .00 0
200 0
~ ,~
n
1.r ll) l \
::;')fj:.!.l HIlI
:54 7 .0 0 0
20 10
- 14 -
, ir ~ tnt
Value of the Securities Portfolio"
Purchasing Power of Income Distributed"
~ t~ .
n
19 HO
19 80
s' ln.ooo
~
~
(See Table III· Portfolio II)
EXAMPLE II
Ten Percent Inflation with Current Payout Requirement
Value of the Securities Portfolio
Purchasing Power of Income Distributed
:;;88.0 00
S 1.0 00.000
.% 1.000
:3G90.000
542.0 0 0
D
1~
19 90
20 0 0
:W lO
D
$477, 000
529. 0 0 0
1!)90
19 80
(See Table IV· Portfolio I)
20 0 0
D
5:l29.000
2010
EXAMPLE III
Ten Percent Inflation with Five Percent Straight Payout Requirement
Purchasing Power of Income Distributed
Value of the Securities Portfolio
S 1.000,000
"' ;iO .OOO
1980
S49.00 0
548.000
1!190
2000
"Porr Iolio Compositi on : fiO'7. stocks. 40'7(. bonds
In itial Portfolio: :31 million
:598 2 .0 0 0
$%4 .000
S!)4 7 .0 0 0
2000
2010
547.000
2010
1980
(See Table IV· Portfolio II)
1990
�- 15 the real value of the foundation's assets declines from
$1,000,000 to $943,000.
However, as shown by Example II -- which more
nearly corresponds to today's conditions -- this picture
changes drastically when the rate of inflation rises to 10%.
The purchasing power of the foundation's grants is somewhat
higher in the early years of the 30 year period
precisely
because the foundation is forced by the current income
payout rule to distribute part of its corpus.
However,
because of this erosion of corpus the purchasing power of
the foundation's grants falls rapidly.
By the end of the 30
year period the real value of these grants is only $29,000.
Over the same period, the real value of the foundation'Os
assets has fallen from $1,000,000 to $329,000.
Finally, Example III shows that the proposed
modification of the payout requirement would significantly
reduce this erosion of foundation grant capability . in an
inflationary economy.
Under the proposed payout requirement
the foundation would be required to distribute an amount
equal to 5% of the value of its investment assets and could
use income in excess of 5% to preserve the charitable purchasing
power of its grants.
Under this rule the foundation would
be able largely to offset the effect of continued 10% inflation.
Indeed, the purchasing power of the foundation's grants
would be only $3,000 less at the end of the 30 year period
than at the beginning, having fallen from $50,000 to $47,000.
�- 16
I
ti
sa
l
s
oim
p
o
r
t
a
n
tt
op
o
i
n
to
u
tt
h
a
ti
f
,
a
sw
e a
l
lh
o
p
e
,t
h
er
a
t
eo
fi
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
nf
a
l
l
ss
h
a
r
p
l
yi
n
c
om
i
n
gy
e
a
r
s
,t
h
em
o
d
i
f
i
e
dp
a
y
o
u
tr
u
l
eem
b
o
d
i
e
di
nS
. 464
w
i
l
lc
o
n
t
i
n
u
et
oi
n
s
u
r
et
h
a
tf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sm
ak
e s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
c
u
r
r
e
n
td
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
st
oc
h
a
r
i
t
y
. I
fi
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
nf
a
l
l
s
,d
a
t
a
o
nh
i
s
t
o
r
i
ci
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
tr
e
t
u
r
n
sm
ak
e
s c
l
e
a
rt
h
a
tt
h
en
om
i
n
a
l
r
e
t
u
r
no
nf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
ni
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
t
sw
i
l
la
l
s
of
a
l
l
. F
o
re
x
am
p
l
e
,
i
f
i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
nf
a
l
l
sb
a
c
kt
o2% p
e
ry
e
a
r
,t
h
en
om
i
n
a
lr
e
t
u
r
no
n
t
h
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
'
si
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
t
sw
i
l
lf
a
l
lt
or
o
u
g
h
l
y6
.5%
,o
f
w
h
i
c
ha
p
p
r
o
x
im
a
t
e
l
y3
.5% w
o
u
l
db
ei
nt
h
ef
o
rmo
fc
u
r
r
e
n
t
i
n
c
om
e
. B
e
c
a
u
s
et
h
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
'
sc
u
r
r
e
n
ti
n
c
om
ew
o
u
l
db
e
w
e
l
lb
e
l
ow 5%
,e
l
im
i
n
a
t
i
o
no
ft
h
er
e
q
u
i
r
em
e
n
tt
h
a
tf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
ec
u
r
r
e
n
ti
n
c
om
ei
ne
x
c
e
s
so
f 5% w
o
u
l
dh
a
v
ea
b
s
o
l
u
t
e
l
y.
no e
f
f
e
c
to
nt
h
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
'
sr
e
q
u
i
r
e
dp
a
y
o
u
t
. Th
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d s
t
i
l
lb
er
e
q
u
i
r
e
dt
od
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e 5% p
e
ry
e
a
r-p
r
e
c
i
s
e
l
y
t
h
es
am
er
e
s
u
l
tt
h
a
tw
o
u
l
do
b
t
a
i
nu
n
d
e
rc
u
r
r
e
n
tl
aw
.
V
I
.
THE INCOME PAYOUT RULE D
ISTORTS
FOUNDAT
ION INVESTMENT DEC
IS
IONS
I
ni
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
yp
e
r
i
o
d
s
,t
h
e
.r
e
q
u
i
r
em
e
n
tt
h
a
t
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sp
a
y
o
u
tt
h
e
i
re
n
t
i
r
ec
u
r
r
e
n
ti
n
c
om
eh
a
sa
n
o
t
h
e
r
h
a
rm
f
u
le
f
f
e
c
tn
o
ti
n
t
e
n
d
e
dby C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s-i
t
d
i
s
t
o
r
t
s
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
ni
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
td
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
sa
n
de
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
sf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
oa
b
a
n
d
o
nt
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
,p
r
u
d
e
n
ti
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
ts
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
si
n
f
a
v
o
ro
fmo
r
e r
i
s
k
yi
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
t
s
. Th
em
e
c
h
a
n
i
sm t
h
r
o
u
g
h
w
h
i
c
h t
h
i
so
c
c
u
r
si
sq
u
i
t
es
im
p
l
e
. U
n
d
e
rc
u
r
r
e
n
tl
awa
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nt
h
a
tw
i
s
h
e
s t
op
r
e
s
e
r
v
ei
t
sf
u
t
u
r
eg
r
a
n
tc
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
h
a
sa s
t
r
o
n
gi
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
et
ol
im
i
ti
t
sc
u
r
r
e
n
ti
n
c
om
et
oa
n
�- 17 amount equal to the 5% minimum distribution requirement, and
to seek to realize the remainder of its total return in the
form of long-term capital appreciation.
To accomplish this
goal, the foundation must invest a greater portion of its
total assets in stocks and other assets offering the possibility
of capital appreciation.
However, it is well established
that the risk associated with such equity investments is
significantly greater than that associated with bonds and
other debt securities.
Indeed, a frequently, cited historical
study of investments compares standard indices and concludes
that common stock investments have involved risk four times
as great as bond investments.*
-I
Moreover, there are risks
in anY"lOng tterm investment strategy which forces foundations
toward an unbalanced approach.
It is better if foundations
are free to adQpt a prudent balanced strategy combining some
fixed income investments and some equity investments.
Statistical data are not available to suggest
the extent to which foundations have adopted such higher
risk investment strategies.
However, it is known that
investment advisors are recommending such strategies to
their foundation clients; suggesting, for example, such
nontraditional investments as call options, deep discount
bonds, commodities, timber holdings and foreign equity
investments.
It is also clear that the present payout rule
provides a strong incentive for foundations to accept this
advice.
By thus encouraging foundations to assume greater
* Ibbotson and Sinquefield, "Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and
Inflation (1926-1978)," p. 23.
�- 18 risk, the present payout rule is further jeopardizing their
future grant capability.
Commenting on this dilemma, Professor of Business
Administration, J. Peter Williamson of Dartmouth College and
the University of Virginia writes,
"Long-term bonds, and from time to time
short-term instruments, offer high current
income coupled with declining real capital
value. Common stocks offer significantly
lower current income coupled with a reduced
likelihood of loss of real capital value.
The foundation seeking the greatest chance
of maintaining the purchasing power of its
investments will be driven to the lowest
yielding cornmon stocks, which generally constitute the most risky securities available.
The foundation choosing a prudent balance
between risk and return has been forced in
recent years to accept a higher current
income and a substantial deterioration in
real capital value. What the distribution
requirement in Section 4942 has aone is to
create a situation in which the only chance
a private foundation has of minimizing capital
depreciation is to pursue an extraordinarily
high risk investment strategy. Any reasonable
balance between risk and return must lead
inevitably to erosion of the real value of the
portfolio.
There is no logic in a distribution rule that
forces this choice upon a private foundation.
If the purpose of the legislation is to prevent
this imbalance between growth and distribution,
then the minimum investment return rule alone
would serve that purpose without the perverse
results of the requirement that current income
be distributed,"
A copy of a recent study by Professor Williamson of the
impact of the payout requirement on foundations is attached
as Exhibit II.
�- 19 W
h
i
l
e c
o
l
l
e
g
e
s
,u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i
e
sa
n
da
l
lo
t
h
e
rt
a
x
e
x
em
p
ti
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
sc
a
nt
a
k
ea
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
eo
ft
h
eh
i
g
hy
i
e
l
d
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
eon b
o
n
d
sa
n
do
t
h
e
rs
im
i
l
a
ri
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
t
st
od
e
f
e
n
d
t
h
e
i
rc
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
ep
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
gp
ow
e
ra
g
a
i
n
s
ti
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
nw
h
i
l
e
s
t
i
l
lm
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g a
na
d
e
q
u
a
t
ec
u
r
r
e
n
tc
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
ep
r
o
g
r
am
,
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sc
a
n
n
o
t
. Th
er
e
q
u
i
r
em
e
n
tt
h
a
ta
l
li
n
c
om
eb
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
dh
a
sb
r
o
u
g
h
ta
b
o
u
t
,t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,a
na
r
t
i
f
i
c
i
a
l
a
n
dw
h
o
l
l
yu
n
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d-i
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
tc
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
tw
h
i
c
hi
s
d
i
s
t
o
r
t
i
n
gf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
ni
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
td
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
sa
n
dw
h
i
c
hs
h
o
u
l
d
b
ee
l
im
i
n
a
t
e
d
.
V
I
I
.
EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED PAYOUT
RULE ON FOUNDAT
ION GRANTS
U
n
d
e
rt
h
ep
a
y
o
u
tr
u
l
eem
b
o
d
i
e
di
nS
. 464 f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sw
o
u
l
dc
o
n
t
i
n
u
et
ob
er
e
q
u
i
r
e
dt
od
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
ea
n am
o
u
n
t
e
q
u
a
lt
o5% o
ft
h
ev
a
l
u
eo
ft
h
e
i
ri
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
ta
s
s
e
t
s
.
How
ev
e
r
, t
h
e
yw
o
u
l
d n
o
tb
er
e
q
u
i
r
e
dt
od
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
et
h
e
i
re
n
t
i
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
ti
n
c
om
e
. Th
e 5% d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nr
e
q
u
i
r
em
e
n
tw
o
u
l
d
e
n
s
u
r
et
h
a
tf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sc
o
n
t
i
n
u
et
om
ak
e s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
lc
u
r
r
e
n
t
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
st
oc
h
a
r
i
t
y
. I
n
d
e
e
d
,h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
yt
h
i
s5% d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nr
e
q
u
i
r
em
e
n
te
x
c
e
e
d
st
h
ea
v
e
r
a
g
er
e
a
li
n
c
om
ew
h
i
c
h
af
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nc
o
u
l
dh
a
v
ee
a
r
n
e
do
v
e
rt
h
ep
a
s
t 50 y
e
a
r
so
na
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
dw
e
l
l
-m
a
n
a
g
e
dp
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
oo
fs
t
o
c
k
sa
n
db
o
n
d
s
. P
r
o
f
e
s
s
o
r
W
i
l
l
i
am
s
o
n
'
s r
e
c
e
n
ts
t
u
d
y
,r
e
f
e
r
r
e
dt
oa
b
o
v
e
,i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
st
h
a
t
o
v
e
rt
h
ep
e
r
i
o
df
r
om1926 t
h
r
o
u
g
h1978 t
h
er
e
a
lt
o
t
a
lr
e
t
u
r
n
(
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
gb
o
t
hi
n
c
om
ea
n
dc
a
p
i
t
a
la
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
) on a b
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
i
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
tp
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
oi
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
gb
o
t
he
q
u
i
t
ya
n
dd
e
b
ti
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
t
s
w
a
s b
e
tw
e
e
n4
.
0a
n
d4
.5%
. W
h
e
t
h
e
r m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d o
v
e
rt
h
ep
a
s
t5
4
�-
20 -
years, 30 years or 5 years the average real return on a well
balanced portfolio has been less than 5%.
Thus, a payout
requirement of 5% will ensure that foundations distribute to
charity the entire real return they can expect from their
invested assets -- and probably a little more.
The extent to which the proposed payout rate would
result in a short-term decline in foundation grants is
difficult to predict.
Certainly there will be some decline.
But the scale of this decline should be seen in perspective.
It is clear that certain classes of foundation grants would
be unaffected by the change in the payout requirement.
Grants by company-sponsored foundations, for example, would
be unaffected.
These foundations normally hold small endowments
and pay grants primarily out of current contributions received
from the sponsoring company.
There are also substantial
amounts distributed by other foundations that are essentially
mechanisms for current charitable distributions of individual
donations.
These will be unaffected.
Some endowed independent foundations may well choose
to continue to pay amounts somewhat in excess of 5% of the
value of their investment assets, either as a matter of program choice or because they are required by their charters
to payout all of their income and/or to payout principal
amounts, as well.
In the aggregate, all independent foundations pay
out now about 5.7% of asset value each year.
If all independent
�- 21
foundation giving was reduced to the 5% minimum investment
return -- and, for the reasons stated above, the decline
would not be the full amount -- the result would be a
decrease in immediate contributions to the philanthropic
sector of about one-half percent of total charitable giving,
since all foundation grants account for only about 5% of all
private giving for charitable purposes.
This short-term reduction in distributions is
clearly justified as a way of insuring that foundations
can continue support in the future.
Indeed, as we have
noted earlier, the philanthropic sector would over time
recoup the immediate reductions as payout increased as a
result of foundations preserving their endowment value instead of quickly distributing corpus at
VIII.
cc~ er te
rates.
TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS
In addition to its principal provision amending
the foundation payout requirement, S. 464 contains three
technical amendments which will eliminate unnecessary
administrative burdens imposed on foundations by current
law.
The Council on Foundations strongly supports the
enactment of each of these amendments.
Exception to Foundation Record-keeping
Requirement For Small Grants
Current law requires that a foundation making
grants to organizations not recognized as public charities
comply with detailed record-keeping and reporting require-
�- 22 ments.
These so-called "expenditure responsibility" require-
ments are particularly burdensome for small foundations
which often lack the administrative resources to comply with
the requirements, and which as a result are simply unable to
make many worthwhile grants.
Larger foundations also frequently
decide to forego small grants to nonpublic charities in
order to avoid this burden on their administrative resources.
As a result of this requirement, many small-scale
but highly beneficial charitable activities cannot attract
the foundation support they need to survive.
In practical
terms, the cost of this requirement must be measured in
terms of the summer youth program, the community cleanup,
the local drug abuse prevention effort which never happens
because of a lack of foundation support.
To eliminate this clearly unintended result,
s.
464 would amend current law to provide a $10,000 de
minimis exception under which a foundation would not be
required to comply with the expenditure responsibility
requirements if its grants, along with those of all related
foundations, to a single grantee did not exceed $10,000 in a
given year.
This amendment would not in any way affect the
substantive rules which require that every foundation
grant, large or small, go to support a recognized charitable
activity.
Nor would it relax the expenditure responsibility
requirements for large grants, where they are justified by
the large amounts of money involved.
Instead, this amendment
�-
23 -
would merely recognize that the record-keeping and reporting
requirements which are appropriate for large grants are
counterproductive when applied to small grants.
A Workable Definition of "Family Member"
The private foundation rules impose severe restrictions on the business relationships which may exist
between a foundation and its "disqualified persons,"
and even inadvertent violations of these restrictions trigger
substantial penalty taxes.
Under current law, "disqualified
persons" with respect to a foundation include substantial
contributors to the foundation and all of their lineal
descendants, regardless of how many generations separate
these descendants from the original contributor.
This rule
can impose a great administrative burden on private foundations,
the magnitude of which increases geometrically with each
passing generation.
For example, many of the country's
largest foundations were established early in this century,
and the managers of these foundations must keep track of
hundreds of lineal descendants of substantial contributors
in order to avoid inadvertent violations of the foundation
rules.
To eliminate this waste of foundation resources
without undermining the effectiveness of the foundation
rules, S. 464 would amend the definition of "family members,"
and thus of "disqualified persons," to include only children
and grandchildren, rather than all lineal descendants, of
�substantial contributors.
24 In those few cases in which more
remote descendants continue to be actively involved in the
operation of the foundation, they will still be treated as
disqualified persons by virtue of being foundation managers
or the children or grandchildren of such managers.
Thus the
proposed change will create no potential for abuse, and will
increase the amount of foundation resources available to
support charitable activities.
Elimination of Unreasonable
Administrative Requirement
[TO FOLLOW]
�- 25 IX.
CONCLUSION
Foundations strongly support the basic objective
of the payout rule and they believe that the 5% minimum
payout requirement should be maintained.
In supporting S.
464, foundations seek only the elimination of the requirement that they payout such income as they receive above 5%.
The ability of foundations to support vital charitable
activities in the future as they have in the past is threatened
by the present requirement that foundations distribute their
entire current income.
Elimination of this requirement
would contribute significantly to the preservation of the
future grant-making capability .of foundations.
We must expect that the needs of the future will
be as compelling as are the concerns of today.
If we
permit foundation endowments to erode, the charitable sector
will be unable to calIon foundations as alternatives to
government at special times of need.
American charity then
will have lost much of its flexibility and perhaps, over
time, some of its freedom.
Congress should enact S. 464 to
forestall these consequences, which have resulted from
inflation and which were completely unforeseen when the
payout provision was enacted in 1969.
�r
I
I
APPEND
IXI
TABLEI
TABLEI
I
To
t
a
lAnnu
a
l Inv
e
s
tm
en
tR
e
tu
rn
s
(
1
9
2
6-1
9
7
8
)
To
t
a
lAnnu
a
l Inv
e
s
tm
en
tR
e
tu
rn
s
(
1
9
6
9-1
9
7
8
)
Nom
in
a
l Annu
a
l
R
e
tu
rn
C
lass
(m
e
an
l
8
.9%
CommonS
to
ck
s
LongT
ennCo
rp
.B
ond
s
4
.0%
S
e
cu
r
i
ty
ennGov
t
. Bond
s
LongT
U
.S
.T
r
e
a
su
ryB
i
l
l
s
3
.20
/0
2
.5%
Annu
a
l
In
f
l
a
t
ion
(m
e
an
l
2
.5
2
.5
2
.5
2
.5
R
e
a
l Annu
a
l
R
e
tu
rn
s
(m
e
an
)
6
.4%
1
.5%
0
.7%
0
.0%
=
Nom
in
a
l Annu
a
l
R
e
tu
rn
C
l
a
s
s
(m
e
an
)
3
.2%
CommonS
to
ck
s
L
o
n
gT
ennCo
rp
.B
o
n
d
s
5
.8%
ennG
o
v
t
.B
o
n
d
s
L
o
n
gT
5
.1%
i
l
l
s
U
.S
.T
r
e
a
su
ryB
5
.9%
S
e
cu
r
i
ty
Annu
a
l
In
f
l
a
t
ion
(m
e
an
)
6
.7
6
.7
6
.7
6
.7
R
e
a
l Annu
a
l
R
e
tu
rn
s
(m
e
an
)
·
3
.
5%
-0
.
9%
-1
.
6%
·
0
.8%
Sou
r
c
e
:S
to
ck
s
, Bond
s
.B
i
l
l
s
. and In
f
l
a
t
ion
:H
i
s
to
r
i
c
a
lR
e
tu
rn
s
(1926
-78
)I
bbo
t
son& Sinqu
e
f
i
e
ld
.1979.
TABLEI
I
I
E
f
f
e
c
to
fa2%R
a
t
eo
fIn
f
l
a
t
iono
n6
0%S
to
ck
4
0%Bond Po
r
t
fo
l
io
sw
i
th
ayou
t
s
D
i
f
f
e
r
en
t In
com
eP
Th
efo
l
low
ingt
ab
l
e
si
l
lu
s
t
r
a
t
e
th
e
e
f
f
e
c
to
fa2%r
a
t
e
o
f
econ
s
t
an
tdo
l
l
a
rpo
r
t
fo
l
iov
a
lu
eandth
e
in
f
l
a
t
iono
nth
pu
r
ch
a
s
ingpow
e
ro
fin
com
ed
ev
e
lop
edf
romth
r
e
e6
0%
s
t
o
c
k
·4
0%bondpo
r
t
fo
l
io
s
.Th
epo
r
t
fo
l
io
sa
r
einv
e
s
t
ed
t
op
rov
id
eato
t
a
lr
e
tu
rno
f6
.
8%
,w
i
thth
e
bond
sr
e
tu
rn
ing
5%andth
es
to
ck
s8%p
e
ry
e
a
r
.Th
e 8%r
e
tu
rnf
r
om
s
to
ck
si
sd
e
r
iv
ed5%f
r
omc
ap
i
t
a
lapp
r
e
c
i
a
t
ionand3%
a
shin
com
e
.Inth
ef
i
r
s
tpo
r
t
fo
l
io
,th
e
c
a
shin
com
e
f
r
omc
r
e
tu
rno
f3
.
8%i
sl
e
s
sth
anth
em
in
imum 5%p
ayou
t
r
equ
i
r
em
en
t
.Th
e
r
e
fo
r
e,s
om
e
en
c
ro
a
chm
en
to
fth
ep
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
mu
s
to
c
cu
randth
e
e
f
f
e
c
to
fth
i
sen
c
ro
a
chm
en
ti
sshown
inPo
r
t
fo
l
ioI
I
.Po
r
t
fo
l
ioIdo
e
sno
tr
e
f
l
e
c
tth
i
sen
c
ro
a
ch
m
en
t
.
I
nth
es
e
condpo
r
t
fo
l
io,5%o
fth
ev
a
lu
ei
sd
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
and1
.8%r
e
inv
e
s
t
ed6
0%s
to
ck
s-4
0%bond
se
a
rn
inga
t
th
es
am
er
a
t
e
so
fr
e
tu
rn
;andi
nth
e
th
i
rd
,th
e
r
e
a
lr
e
tu
rn
o
f4
.
8%i
sd
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
edand2%i
sr
e
inv
e
s
t
ed6
0%s
t
o
c
k
s
·
4
0%bond
se
a
rn
inga
tth
es
am
er
a
t
e
so
fr
e
tu
rn
.
A
s
sump
t
ion
s
:
(1
)A
l
lpo
r
t
fo
l
io
sb
eg
inw
i
th$1
,000
,000inv
e
s
t
ed6
0%
i
n
s
to
ck
st
or
e
tu
rn8%
(
6%r
e
a
lr
e
tu
rnand2%in
f
l
a
t
ion
)
and4
0%bond
st
or
e
tu
rn5%(3%r
e
a
lr
e
tu
rnand2%
in
f
l
a
t
ion
)
.
PORTFOL
IOI
A
l
l In
com
eD
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
edI
Yea
r
19
80
1990
2000
2010
In
com
e
$
38
.
000
51
,069
68
.632
92
.236
Pu
r
ch
a
s
ingPow
e
ro
f
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
In
com
e In
com
eD
D
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
(
1
9
8
0Do
l
l
a
r
s
)
S3
8
.000
$
3
8
.00
0
51
,069
41
,
8
9
4
68
.632
46
.
1
8
7
92
.236
5
0
.9
21
(1
)Th
ec
ap
i
t
a
lapp
r
e
ci
a
t
ionf
romth
es
to
ck
so
f5%p
e
ry
ea
ri
sa
s
sum
ed
to b
er
e
inv
e
s
t
ed
:60% b
a
ck in
tos
to
ck
sand 40% in
tobond
s
th
e
r
ebym
a
in
t
a
in
ing th
e60%-40% s
to
ckbondr
a
t
io
.
PORTFOL
IOI
I
5%D
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
,1
.
8%R
e
inv
e
s
t
ed1
Y
e
a
r
1980
1990
2000
2
01
0
Nom
in
a
l
V
a
lu
ein
V
a
lu
e
1980Do
l
l
a
r
s
,000
.000
$1
.000
.000 $1
9
80
.5
64
1
.195
.302
1
.428
.748
9
61
.5
06
1
.
707
.786
94
2
.81
9
In
com
e
$38
.000
45
.421
54
.292
64
.896
Pu
r
ch
a
s
ingPow
e
ro
f
To
t
a
l
In
com
eD
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
D
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
(1
980Do
l
l
a
r
s
)
$50
.000
$50
,
0
0
0
59
.765
4
9
.
0
2
8
71
,437
4
8
.
0
7
5
85
.389
4
7
.
1
4
1
(1
)Th
e to
t
a
lr
e
tu
rni
s6
.8% f
romt
h
epo
r
t
fo
l
io in
v
e
s
t
ed 60% in
s
to
ck
sa
ta8% r
e
tu
rnt2%in
f
l
a
t
ion
)and40%inbond
sa
ta5%
r
e
tu
rn
.O
fth
eto
t
a
lr
e
tu
rno
f6
.8%
. 5% i
sd
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
.l
e
av
ing
1
.8% t
ob
er
e
inv
e
s
t
ed
.
er
a
t
eo
fin
f
l
a
t
ioni
sa
s
sum
edt
ob
e2%p
e
ry
e
a
r
.
(2
)Th
(
3
)T
h
ed
iv
id
end
sf
r
oms
to
ck
sp
rov
id
eac
a
shi
n
c
om
e
a
rk
e
tv
a
lu
eo
f3%andth
ein
t
e
r
e
s
t
y
i
e
ldb
a
s
edo
nm
f
r
ombond
sp
rov
id
e
sac
a
shin
com
ey
i
e
ldb
a
s
edo
n
m
a
rk
e
tv
a
lu
eo
f5%f
o
ra
nov
e
r
a
l
lc
a
shin
com
ey
i
e
l
d
to
ck
s
·4
0%bond
s
)
.
o
f3
.
8%(
6
0%s
(
4
)
I
t
i
sa
s
sum
edth
a
t
bond
sw
i
l
lp
rov
id
ear
e
a
lr
e
tu
rno
f
an
h
i
s
to
r
i
c
a
l
3%
,a
l
thoughth
i
si
ssom
ewh
a
th
igh
e
rth
r
e
tu
rn
s
.
V
a
lu
ein
Nom
in
a
l
V
a
lu
e
1980 Do
l
l
a
r
s
S
I
,OOO
.OOO $1
,000
.000
1
,343
.916
1
.102
.480
1
,806
.111
1
,
215
.461
2
.427
.263
1
,340
.021
PORTFOL
IOI
I
I
R
e
a
lR
e
tu
rno
f4
.
8%D
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed\2%
R
e
inv
e
s
t
ed
Y
e
a
r
1980
1990
2000
2010
Nom
in
a
l
V
a
lu
ein
V
a
lu
e
1980Do
l
l
a
r
s
$1
.000
.000 $1
,000.000
1
,218
.994
1
,000
.000
1
,485
.947
1
,000
.000
1
,811
.362
1
,000
.000
In
com
e
$38
.000
46
.322
56
.466
68
.832
Pu
r
ch
a
s
ingPow
e
ro
f
To
t
a
l
In
com
eD
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
D
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
(
1
980Do
l
l
a
r
s
)
$48
.000
5
48
.
0
0
0
5
8
.51
2
4
8
.
0
0
0
71
.325
48
.
0
0
0
86
.945
4
8
.
0
0
0
t
1
)Th
e po
r
t
fo
l
io'
sr
e
a
lr
e
tu
rni
s4
.8% w
h
i
ch i
sth
eto
t
a
lr
e
tu
rno
f
6
.8% m
inu
s 2% in
f
l
a
t
ion
.O
f th
et
o
t
a
lr
e
tu
rno
f6
.8 %
.4
.8% i
s
d
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
edl
e
av
ing2% tob
er
e
inv
e
s
t
ed
.
�TABLEIV
E
f
f
e
c
to
fa10%R
a
t
eo
fIn
f
l
a
t
ionon60%S
to
ck
- 40%BondPo
r
t
fo
l
io
sw
i
th
ayou
t
s
D
i
f
f
e
r
en
t In
com
eP
PORTFOL
IOI
Th
efo
l
low
ingt
ab
l
e
s
i
l
lu
s
t
r
a
t
e
th
e
e
f
f
e
c
to
fa10%r
a
t
eo
f
in
f
l
a
t
ionon th
econ
s
t
an
tdo
l
l
a
rpo
r
t
fo
l
iov
a
lu
eandth
e
pu
r
ch
a
s
ingpow
e
ro
fin
com
ed
ev
e
lop
edf
romth
r
e
e60%
s
to
ck-40%bondpo
r
t
fo
l
io
s
.Th
epo
r
t
fo
l
io
sa
r
einv
e
s
t
ed
to
p
rov
id
eato
t
a
lr
e
tu
rno
f14
.8%
,w
i
th th
ebond
sr
e
tu
rn
ing
13%andth
es
to
ck
s16%p
e
ry
e
a
r
.Inth
e
f
i
r
s
tpo
r
t
fo
l
io
,a
l
l
in
com
ei
sd
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
;inth
es
e
cond5%o
fth
ev
a
lu
ei
s
d
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
edand9
.8%r
e
inv
e
s
t
ed60%s
to
ck
s-40%bond
s
e
a
rn
inga
tth
es
am
er
a
t
e
so
fr
e
tu
rn
;andinth
eth
i
rd
.th
e
r
e
a
lr
e
tu
rno
f4
.8%i
sd
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
edand10%i
sr
e
inv
e
s
t
ed
60%s
to
ck
s-40%
bond
se
a
rn
inga
tth
e
s
am
er
a
t
e
so
fr
e
tu
rn
.
A
l
l In
com
eD
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed1
Y
e
a
r
V
a
lu
e in
Nom
in
a
l
V
a
lu
e
1980Do
l
l
a
r
s
1980 $
1
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0 5
1
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
1
9
9
0
690
.
449
1
.
790
.
848
2
0
0
0 3
.
207
.136
476
.
720
2
010
5
.743
.491
329
.151
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
gPow
e
ro
f
In
com
eD
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
(
1
9
8
0D
o
l
lB
J
'S
)
In
com
e D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
In
com
e
s88
.
0
0
0
S8
8
.
0
0
0
157
.595
2
82
.228
505
.427
1
57
.595
282
.228
505
.427
588
.000
60
.760
4
2
.
9
5
1
28
.965
(1
)
Th
ec
ap
i
t
a
lapp
r
e
c
i
a
t
ionf
romth
es
t
o
c
k
so
f 10% p
e
ry
e
a
ri
s
a
s
sum
edto b
er
e
inv
e
s
t
ed
:60%b
a
c
kin
tos
to
ck
sand40% in
to
bond
sth
e
r
ebym
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g th
e60%-40%s
to
ckbondr
a
t
io
.
A
s
sump
t
ion
s
:
(1
)A
l
lpo
r
t
fo
l
io
sb
eg
inw
i
th$1
.000
,000inv
e
s
t
ed60%in
s
to
ck
stor
e
tu
rn16%
(6%r
e
a
lr
e
tu
rnand10%
in
f
l
a
t
ion
)
and40%inbond
stor
e
tu
rn13%(3%r
e
a
lr
e
tu
rnand
10%in
f
l
a
t
ion
)
.
PORTFOL
IOI
I
5%D
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
,9
.8%R
e
inv
e
s
t
ed1
(2
)Th
er
a
t
eo
fin
f
l
a
t
ioni
sa
s
sum
edtob
e10%p
e
ry
e
a
r
.
Y
e
lU
'
1980
1
990
2000
2
01
0
(3
)Th
ed
iv
id
end
sf
roms
to
ck
sp
rov
id
eac
a
shin
com
e
a
s
edonm
a
rk
e
tv
a
lu
eo
f6%andth
ein
t
e
r
e
s
t
y
i
e
ldb
f
rombond
sp
rov
id
e
sac
a
shin
com
ey
i
e
ldb
a
s
edon
m
a
rk
e
tv
a
lu
eo
f13%
fo
ranov
e
r
a
l
lc
a
shin
com
e
y
i
e
ld
to
ck
s-40%bond
s
)
.
o
f8
.8%(60%s
Nom
in
a
l
V
a
lu
e in
V
a
lu
e
1
980Do
l
l
a
r
s
s1
.000
.000 5
1
.000
.000
2
.546
.967
981
.966
6
.
487
.
043
9
64
.258
9
46
.
i
l
68
1
6
.
522
.
289
In
com
e
.
D
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
$5
0
.000
127
.348
324
.352
826
.114
In
com
e
8
.0
00
5 8
224
.133
5
70
.
860
1
.453
.961
Pu
r
ch
a
s
ingPow
e
ro
f
In
com
eD
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
1
1
9
8
0Do
l
l
a
r
s
)
$
5
0
.
0
0
0
4
9
.
0
9
8
I
.
4
8
.
2
1
3
4
7
.
3
4
3
(1
)Th
e to
t
a
lr
e
tu
rni
s 14
.8%fomt
h
epo
r
t
fo
l
ioinv
e
s
t
ed60%in
s
to
ck
sa
ta16%r
e
tu
rn110%in
f
l
a
t
ion
)
a
n
d40%inbond
sa
:
ta13%
r
e
tu
rn
.O
fth
eto
t
a
lr
e
tu
rno
f14
.8%
. 5%i
sd
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
.l
e
av
ing
9
.8%tob
er
e
inv
e
s
t
ed
.
I~
(4
)I
t
i
sa
s
sum
edth
a
t
bond
sw
i
l
lp
rov
id
ear
e
a
lr
e
tu
rno
f
l
thoughth
i
si
ssom
ewh
a
th
igh
e
rth
anh
i
s
to
r
i
c
a
l
3%
,a
r
e
tu
rn
s
.
I
,
I
PORTFOL
IOI
I
I
R
e
a
lR
e
tu
rno
f4
.8%
D
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed\ 10%
R
e
inv
e
s
t
ed
Y
e
a
r
1980
1
990
2000
2
010
V
a
lu
e in
Nom
in
a
l
V
a
lu
e
1980Do
l
l
a
r
s
$1
.000
.000 5
1
.000
.
000
.000
.000
2
.593
.743 1
6
.
727
.
500 1
.
000
.000
.000
.000
1
7
.449
.402 1
In
com
e
8
8
.000
2
28
.249
5
92
.020
1
.
535
.547
s
In
com
e
D
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
s48
.000
124
.500
322
.920
8
37
.571
Pu
r
ch
a
s
ingPow
e
ro
f
In
com
eD
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed
1
1
9
8
0Do
l
l
a
r
s
)
5
4
8
.
0
0
0
4
8
.
0
0
0
4
8
.
0
0
0
4
8
.
0
0
0
(1
)Th
e po
r
t
fo
l
io
'
sr
e
a
lr
e
t
u
r
ni
s4
.8%wh
i
ch i
sth
eto
t
a
lr
e
t
u
r
no
f
inu
s 10%in
f
l
a
t
ion
.O
f th
et
o
t
a
lr
e
t
u
r
no
f14
.8%
.4
.8%i
s
14
.8%m
d
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
edl
e
av
ing10%tob
er
e
inv
e
s
t
ed
.
b
�APPENDIX II
Inflation and The
Foundation Payout Rate
J. Peter Williamson
In the Tax Reform Act of 1969
Congress for the first time required
private foundations to distribute for
charitable purposes what was considered to be an appropriate minimum
measure of income. Specifically, Section 4942 of the Internal Revenue
Code calls for annual distribution of
the greater of the foundation's actual
current investment income or its
"minimum investment return:' Initially, the minimum investment return was set at 6 percent of the yearend market value of investments,
with a provision for an annual adjustment to be made by the Treasury,
The rate, in fact, was raised as high as
6.5 percent in subsequent years.
In an article in the Januaryl
February 1976 issue of Foundation
News, the author suggested that a
distribution rate between 4.5 percent
and 5 percent was probably as much
as a foundation could afford if (he
purchasing power of its distributions
was to keep pace with inflation in (he
nation's economy. In order to keep
up with the higher rate of inflation in
activities of the kind generally supported by private foundations, tbe
�payout would have to be held at 3
percent to 4 percent a year.
Keeping up with inflation is clearly
d desirable goal. It means maintaining the purchasing power of distributions and a constant level of
programs and social benefits. And it
appears from the history of Section
4942 that Congress supports this
goal. However, it takes only 14 years
for a 5 percent inflation rate to cut
the purchasing power of a dollar in
half. Seven and a half years will do it
at 10 percent inflation.
Since the time of that article, Congress has taken a somew hat more
realistic view of the relation between
inflation and what a portfolio of securities can reasonably be expected to
produce, and the minimum investment return has been fixed, effective
for 1976 and succeed ing years, at 5
percent. So under present law a private foundation must distribute each
year the greater of its actual investment income or 5 percent of the
market value of its portfolio. The
purpose of this article is to review the
reasonableness of this present rule.
Ten years have passed since the
first payout requirements became
law, and five years have passed since
preparation of the article referred to
above. What the experience of these
years suggests is that the conclusions
of that article were, if anything, optimistic and that although the concept
of a minimum investment return
makes sense, the requirement that all
current investment income be distributed does not.
The range of investments available
to private foundations has not
changed much for many years. The
previous article observed that private
foundation assets are mostly investments in common stocks, fixedincome securities, and short-term instruments. It is true that institutional
investors in the United States have
shown increasing interest in foreign
stock markets and in real estate in recent years . Foreign markets, chiefly
because of the steady devaluation of
the U.S. dollar against some foreign
currencies, have proved to be attractive and some foundations have
found it worthwhile to expend the
time and money necessary to set up a
mechanism for maintaining a portfolio of foreign stocks and to work
out with foreign governments an
exemption from the usual taxes imposed on United States investors. But
most foundations, including the
smaller ones, are still somewhat reluctant to venture abroad for investment
opportunities. Real estate presents a
different set of problems. Achieving
a reasonably diversified portfolio of
real-estate holdings demands either
an enormous total portfolio or opportunities to participate in pooled
funds holding real estate. Although
pooled funds have been available for
participation by pension funds for
many years now, opportunities for
private foundations to invest in realestate pools are still somewhat limited. So foundation portfolios are by
and large limited to stocks, bonds,
and money market instruments.
There appear to be no readily
available statistics on the composition
of private foundation investment
portfolios. But there are available
statistics on the composition of the
endowment funds of colleges and
universities. Each year the Investment Committee of the National Association of College and University
Business Officers (N ACUBO) collects
information on the endowment
funds of NACUBO member institutions, covering at least half of all college and university endowment funds
in the nation. The previous article
reported that on average these
endowment funds were invested 60
percent in common stocks, 30 percent in bonds, and 10 percent in
short-term securities. The most recent data available indicate little
change. The proportion in common
stocks generally falls within 58 percent to 62 percent and the proportion
in bonds falls between 25 percent and
30 percent. This allocation of investment assets reflects a generally sensible balance between risk and expected return. History suggests, and
most professional investors are inclined to agree, that common stocks
are likely to produce greater rates of
return than are bonds and short-term
instruments. At the same time, there
is more uncertainty associated with
common stocks than with bonds or
money-market instruments. Bonds,
while less risky than common stocks,
present more uncertainty than do
short-term instruments. And the
dismal performance of bonds for
Foundt";o,, Neu», March I.ipril 1981
19
�Table I
54 Years: 1926 through 1979
Compound At/g. Compound Avg.
Annual Ratf
oj Return
"Real" Annual
Rate oj Return
Standard Be Poor's Composite
("500) Common Stock Index
9.0%
6.1%
long Term High Grade Bonds
3.8
1.1
Treasury Bills
2.7
0
Rate of Inflation (Cons. Price Index)
2.7
many years now has encouraged
some shin toward short-term insrru-
rate of total return on long-term
high-grade corporate bonds was 3.8
menrs.
percent, and the rate on Treasury
It is impossible to produce a "best" Bills was 2.7 percent. Over the same
compromise between risk and return 54 years the average annual rate of
and a "best': portfolio for all private inflation, as represented by the Confoundations. But the intuitive com- sumer Price Index, was 2.7 percent.
promise that has led colleges and Adjusted for inflation, the "real" anuniversities to an average 60-30-10 nual rate of return on common stocks
alltj>cation of their assets is probably was 6.1 percent: the real rate on
generally satisfactory (or private bonds was 1.1 percent; and the real
foundations. In the absence. then. of rate on Treasury Bills was O.
special constraint such as that conTables II and III present the same
tained in Section 4942. one might ex- statistics as does Table I, but for more
pect a prudently managed private recent periods. Table II covers the 30
foundation to hold an investment years through 1979, approximately
portfolio consisting of approximately the period from the adjustment of
60 percent common stocks. 30 per- the economy after World War II up
cent bonds and ) 0 percent short-term to the present. Table III covers 10
instruments.
years through 1979, approximately
Tables in the previous article the period following the stock market
summarized some historical rates of boom of the 1950s and '60s. The sigreturn on common stocks. long-term nificant change over time revealed by
high-grade corporate bonds, Treas- these tables is, of course, the increase
ury Bills, and inflation, taken from in the rate of inflation and the impact
the work of Ibbotson and Sinquefield of Inflation on the real rates of return
who have for some years now been on investments.
tabulating and publishing these rates.
If one were to take the 54 years of
Table I in this article updates those history represented in Table I as a
earlier figures. It shows that for the reasonable guide to future real rates
54 years, 1926-1979, the compound of return, one might conclude that a
average annual rate of total return foundation invested entirely in com(dividends plus appreciation) on mon stocks and able to avoid paying
common stocks as represented by the commissions and management fees
Standard Be POOl'S Composite Index could afford to distribute 6.1 percent
was 9 percent. The average annual of market value without impairing
%0
Foundation Neu», March 1.4pri11981
the purchasing power of its portfolio
and its distributions. An all common
stock portfolio is simply far too risky,
however, for most foundations. Although there is evidence that some
foundations are being pushed
towards a heavier emphasis on stocks,
because of the difficulty in meeting
the payout requirements of Section
4942 and still keeping up with inflation, a prudent balance is probably
around 60 percent in common stocks,
30 percent in bonds and 10 percent
in Treasury Bills. For this combination, without commission and management costs, the average real annual rate of return was only 4 percent. That is, if Table I is taken as a
reasonable representation of the future, a foundation with a 60-30-10
distribution of assets cannot afford to
distribute annually more than 4 percent of the value of the portfolio
without impairing the purchasing
power of its distributions.
(For a 70-20-10 combination,
somewhat higher risk than 60-30-10,
the annual distribution. could have
been 4.5 percent.)
While Table II suggests a better
experience with common stocks, it
suggests a worse experience with
bonds and, in fact, the average real
annual rate of return on a 60-30-10
portfolio over the 30 years would
have been only 3.7 percent. So distributions beyond 3.7 percent of
market value would have impaired
the purchasing power of a foundation's portfolio and its distributions.
(The 3.7 percent becomes 4.4 percent
for a 70-20-10 portfolio.)
Table III, which covers the ten
years through 1979, paints a dismal
prospect indeed. Without distributing anything at all, a foundation with
a 60-30-10 portfolio would have lost
1.3 percent a year in purchasing
power. About the most optimistic
conclusion one can draw from the
three scenarios represented by these
tables is that a private foundation
with a prudently invested portfolio
might be able to distribute 4 percent a
~.
.-
.
�•
•
I
j
f
year of market value and still hope to higher education, and other activities course, for cornrrusston costs and
preserve the purchasing power of its supported by private foundations management fees. Statistics are availdistributions, at least in terms of the that do not offer the opportunities able for the actual performances of
Consumer Price Index. This conclu- for productivity improvement that college and university endowment
sion is a little less optimistic than that , one finds in the industrial and com- funds, probably a reasonable reprereached in the preceding article, mercial sectors of the economy, is Y2 sentation of how well private founwhich concluded that a 4.5 percent percent to 1 percent above the rate of dation portfolios have done. Unforspending rate offered a fairly good inflation in the Consumer Price In- tunately, there do not appear to be
prospect of keeping up with inflation dex. Very recent experience may any comprehensive statistics on the
in the economy. However, inflation seem to belie this conclusion.
performances of the foundations
in the economy generally, as repreThe numbers in the three tables themselves. Over the ten years endsented by the Consumer Price Index, above represent the performances of ing June 30, 1980, the average anis not quite the same as inflation in indexes, rather than the perform- nual total rate of return for 68 college
the sons of activities supported by ances of actual portfolios held by and university endowment funds
private foundations. There is good foundations or other institutions. (representing about 54.5 billion) was
reason to believe that inflation in And they make no allowance, of 7.64 percent. This was about a half
percent below the total rate of return
on a 60-30-10 index for the same
time period. The average real total
return for the 68 endowment funds
Table II
over the decade was -.40 percent, so
30 Years: 1950 through 1979
that even had they spent none of
their income over the decade, the
Compound ..It/g.
Compound Aug.
funds would on average have failed
"Rtal'" Annual
Annual Rate
to
keep pace with inflation as repreRate of Return
of Return
sented by the Consumer Price Index.
Only 25 of the funds achieved a posi6.6%
Standard & Poor's Composite
10.8%
tive real total rate of return, and the
-1.0
2.9
Long Term High Grade Bonds
highest real total return rate was 3.8
percent a year.
o
4.0
Treasury Bills
For the five years ending June 30,
1980, endowment funds did a little
4.0
Rate of Inflation
better compared to the averages. For
93 colleges and university endowment funds representing over 55 billion in assets the average annual rate
of total return was 8.1 percent while
the corresponding return for a
fund invested in the indexes
60-30-10
Table III
was a half percent less. For this five10 Years: 1970 through 1979
year period, the average real rate of
return was -1.1 percent. Twenty-five
Compound Aug,
Compound Avg.
funds achieved a positive real rate of
"Rear' Annual
Annual RaIl
return and the largest of these was
Rate ofRtturn
of Return
4.4 percent.
Few statistics are available for the
Standard & Poor's Composite
-1.4%
5.9%
performance of endowment funds
-1.1
6.2
Long Term High Grade Bonds
over very long periods of time. But
the 15-year record ending June 30.
-1.0
6.3
Treasury Bills
1980 for 33 endowment funds aggregating over $2 billion in assets
Rate of Inflation
7.4
shows an average annual real rate of
return of -1.5 percent, with only two
funds achieving a positive real return
Foundt,l;on NtTIJ5, March I :fpri11981
%l
�/
s
t
o
c
k
s
,3
0p
e
r
c
en
ti
nbond
s
,and 10
p
e
r
c
en
ti
nT
r
e
a
su
ryB
i
l
l
swou
ld h
av
e
T
ab
l
eIV
p
rodu
c
eda
nav
e
r
ag
ein
com
ey
i
e
ldo
f
5
.
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
d
e
c
a
d
e
10Y
e
a
r
s
: 1970th
rough1979
w
i
t
ha c
ap
i
t
a
ld
ep
r
e
c
i
a
t
ion inpu
r
ch
a
s
ing pow
e
ro
f5
.
8p
e
r
c
en
t
.T
h
e
•
'
f
v
t
'
rag
e
C
CompoundAug
.
om
p
o
u
n
dA
ug
..
b
e
s
t ch
an
c
eo
fp
r
e
s
e
rv
ing th
epu
r
l
"Annua
lRa
t
e
I
n
c
om
e
Annua
lRaJ
l
'o
f "Rea
y
i
t
ld
Ap
t
n
'
t
cw
l
i
0
1
I
o
fAP
fW
t
cW
l
ion
ch
a
s
ing pow
e
ro
fa
n inv
e
s
tm
en
t
po
r
t
fo
l
iowou
ld h
av
eb
e
enfoundin
S
t
and
a
rd& Poo
r
'
s
commons
to
ck
s
.And
, ind
e
ed
,ap
r
i
5
.
4%
4
.
1%
1
.
6%
Compo
s
i
t
e
a
t
ion m
igh
t h
av
e su
c
v
a
t
e found
c
e
e
d
e
d
i
n
a
t
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
LongT
e
rmH
igh
pow
e
rl
o
s
sb
e
low5
.4p
e
r
c
en
tbycon
8
.
6
1
.
8
7
.
9
G
r
ad
e Bond
s
c
en
t
r
a
t
ing on h
igh
e
rr
i
sk g
row
th
s
t
o
c
k
s and g
a
in
ing app
r
e
c
i
a
t
ion in
0
0
6
.
3
T
r
e
a
su
ryB
i
l
l
s
ex
ch
ang
efo
rin
com
e
.B
u
t th
er
e
su
l
t
5
.
8
5
.
5
.
4
2
60
-30
-10M
i
x
eg
r
e
eo
fr
i
s
kto
l
e
r
ab
l
efo
rf
ew
i
sad
e
r
t
a
in
lyin
app
rop
found
a
t
ion
sandc
ov
e
rth
e1
5y
e
a
r
s
.T
h
eh
igh
e
ro
fth
e b
e
tw
e
en3
.
5p
e
r
c
en
tand4p
e
r
c
en
t
. r
i
a
t
ef
o
r m
o
s
t
. So th
efound
a
t
ion
Th
e
r
ei
sa
tl
e
a
s
t al
o
g
i
ct
oar
e
- m
tw
or
a
t
e
sw
a
s1
.
6p
e
r
c
en
tp
e
ry
e
a
r
.
rud
en
tm
ix
tu
r
e o
f
a
in
t
a
in
ing a p
Th
er
e
co
rd o
fa
c
tu
a
l endowm
en
t qu
i
r
ed d
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ion m
e
a
su
r
ed b
ya s
t
o
c
k
sandbond
sw
a
s cond
emn
edto
in
imum inv
e
s
tm
en
tr
e
tu
rn
,on
e e
p
e
r
fo
rm
an
c
e
si
nh
igh
e
r edu
c
a
t
ion m
a
rn
ingandd
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ingas
i
z
ab
l
ein
a
ti
s
l
a
ck
ingi
nth
er
equ
i
r
em
en
tth
a
t com
s
e
em
sth
ent
ocon
f
i
rmacon
c
lu
s
ion th
eandw
a
t
ch
ing r
e
a
lc
ap
i
t
a
lv
a
lu
e
s
e
r
c
en
tannu
a
lr
e
a
lr
a
t
eo
f th
ea
c
tu
a
lcu
r
r
en
t in
com
em
u
s
tb
e d
th
a
ta5p
e
c
l
in
e
.
s th
eto
t
a
lr
e
tu
rnp
e
r
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed.A
r
e
tu
rni
smo
r
e th
anon
ec
a
ns
en
s
ib
ly d
T
h
ef
i
v
ey
e
a
r
s 1975
-1979 h
av
e
fo
rm
an
c
eo
fbo
ths
t
o
c
k
sand bond
s p
rov
ed-m
o
r
es
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
to
ry
,a
s
-shownin
an
t
i
c
ip
a
t
e
.
I
fa5p
e
r
c
en
tr
e
a
lr
a
t
e
5p
e
r
c
en
t h
a
sd
e
c
l
in
ed i
nr
e
c
en
ty
e
a
r
s
,t
oth
e T
ab
l
eV
,l
a
rg
e
lyb
e
c
au
s
e th
i
sf
iv
e
in
twh
e
r
e th
er
e
a
lto
t
a
lr
e
tu
rnh
a
s y
a
f
t
e
ra
l
low
ing fo
r th
ee
f
f
e
c
t
so
f po
e
a
rp
e
r
iodh
app
en
ed
'tob
eg
ina
ta
rn
ed n
eg
a
t
iv
e
,c
u
r
r
e
n
t in
com
e v
in
f
l
a
t
ion
i
smo
r
e th
anc
a
nb
ee
x
- tu
in
ti
nth
es
to
ckm
a
rk
e
r
.
e
r
yl
owpo
i
e
l
d
sh
av
ea
c
tu
a
l
lyr
i
s
en
.Wh
a
t h
a
s (
einv
e
s
t
edfund
so
fp
r
i
- y
In l
a
t
e 1974 t
h
es
to
ck m
a
rk
e
t
p
e
c
t
edf
o
rth
a
t
ion
s
, th
en a r
equ
i
r
ed h
app
en
ed i
sth
a
t bo
th s
t
o
c
k
s and r
e
a
ch
edi
t
sl
ow
e
s
tl
e
v
e
li
nm
any y
e
a
r
s
,
v
a
t
e found
sh
av
eb
e
en d
e
c
l
in
ing i
nr
e
a
l anda
p
ayou
tr
a
t
ea
sh
igha
s5p
e
r
c
en
tc
a
n bond
sacon
s
equ
en
c
eth
ef
iv
ey
e
a
r
s
ein
com
et
h
e
yg
en
e
r
a
t
e f
a
l
u
ew
h
i
l
eth
a
i
rth
er
e
a
lc
ap
i
t
a
l v
b
eexp
e
c
t
edt
oimp
eendo
f1
9
7
4 th
roughth
e
romth
o
fth
e found
a
t
ion
s
.I
ti
sn
o
t un
- h
a
sb
e
enr
i
s
ing
.Tosp
endth
ef
u
l
li
n
- endo
f1
9
7
9p
rodu
c
eda
nav
e
r
ag
ein
r
e
a
son
ab
l
eth
a
tCong
r
e
s
sshou
ldpu
t com
ef
r
omapo
r
t
fo
l
ioh
a
sb
e
com
ea
n com
ey
i
e
l
do
f4
.
7p
e
r
c
en
t coup
l
ed
som
el
im
i
tonth
eex
t
en
tt
owh
i
ch a a
r
ew
a
yt
od
i
s
s
ip
a
t
er
e
a
lc
ap
i
- w
lmo
s
tsu
a
lr
a
t
eo
fap
i
t
ha po
s
i
t
iv
er
e
a
lannu
a
t
ionm
a
yr
e
f
r
a
inf
rom t
p
r
iv
a
t
efound
es
am
et
im
e
,how
a
lv
a
l
u
e
.
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
ion
.
)A
t th
d
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ion
s,r
e
inv
e
s
t
ingin
com
eand
T
ab
l
e IVs
h
ow
sf
o
rth
et
e
ny
e
a
r
s ev
rpo
r
a
t
ebond
so
f
f
e
r
ed v
e
ry
e
r
,co
bu
i
ld
ing up th
ev
a
lu
eo
fi
t
si
n
v
e
s
t
- 1970
ec
ompon
en
t
so
fto
t
a
l h
-1979 th
s
t
an
t
i
a
ld
ep
r
e
igh in
com
eand sub
m
en
t po
r
t
fo
l
io
.I
tapp
e
a
r
sth
a
twh
a
t r
e
tu
rn
in
com
ey
i
e
l
d andapp
r
e
c
i
a
- c
i
a
t
ioni
nr
e
a
lc
ap
i
t
a
lv
a
lu
e
.A
sar
e
adi
nm
ind i
ni
t
sr
equ
i
r
e
- t
Cong
r
e
s
sh
t
o
c
k
sd
e
l
iv
e
r
ed su
ion
.Wh
i
l
e commons
l
t
,a60
-30
-10po
r
t
fo
l
iowou
ld h
av
e
m
en
t th
a
tam
in
imum inv
e
s
tm
en
tr
e
- a
f4
.
1p
e
r
- p
nav
e
r
ag
ein
com
ey
i
e
l
do
rodu
c
eda
nav
e
r
ag
ein
com
ey
i
e
ldo
f
tu
rnb
ed
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ed e
a
ch y
e
a
r
,w
a
s c
en
tov
e
rth
ed
e
c
ad
e
,th
ec
ap
i
t
a
lap
- 6p
e
r
c
en
t and r
e
a
ld
ep
r
e
c
i
a
t
ion in
a
t
ionb
eab
l
et
om
a
in
t
a
in p
th
a
tafound
r
e
c
i
a
t
iono
f1
.
6p
e
r
c
en
tay
e
a
rw
a
s c
f2
.
2p
e
r
c
en
tay
e
a
r
.
ap
i
t
a
lv
a
lu
eo
r
ch
a
s
ingpow
e
ro
fi
t
spo
r
t
fo
l
io no
th
epu
tn
e
a
r
lyenought
ok
e
epupw
i
t
h
ab
l
eIVandV d
emon
s
t
r
a
t
e
,a
A
sT
andi
t
sd
i
s
t
r
ibu
t
ion
sw
i
th as
en
s
ib
l
e in
sar
e
su
l
tth
er
e
a
lc
ap
i
- p
f
l
a
t
ionanda
a
t
iondo
e
sh
av
eac
e
r
r
iv
a
t
e found
tth
a
ti
tn
o
tb
e t
inv
e
s
tm
en
ts
t
r
a
t
egy
.Bu
fs
to
ck
sd
e
c
l
in
ed b
y5
.
4 t
a
lv
a
l
u
eo
r
e
edomo
fcho
i
c
eamongd
i
f
f
e
r
a
i
nf
a
b
l
etodomu
ch mo
r
e th
ank
e
epp
a
c
e p
e
r
c
en
tay
e
a
r
.Co
rpo
r
a
t
e bond
s en
tcu
r
r
en
tin
com
el
e
v
e
l
s
.Long
t
e
rm
e
r
i
en
c
e sugg
e
s
t
s p
w
i
t
h in
f
l
a
t
ion
.Exp
r
e
s
en
t
ed a
n ev
en mo
r
e ex
t
r
em
e bond
romt
im
etot
im
esho
r
t
s
,andf
r
a
th
e
rs
t
rong
lyth
a
tth
e5p
e
r
c
en
tr
a
t
e c
a
s
e
,w
i
t
ha
nav
e
r
ag
ein
com
ey
i
e
l
do
f t
e
rmin
s
t
rum
en
t
s
,o
f
f
e
rh
ighcu
r
r
en
t
inS
e
c
t
ion4
9
4
2i
stooh
igh
.Ar
e
a
son
- 7
.
9p
e
r
c
en
tanda
nav
e
r
ag
ed
ep
r
e
c
i
a
- in
com
ecoup
l
edw
i
th d
e
c
l
in
ing r
e
a
l
eg
iv
ingp
r
iv
a
t
efound
a
- t
epu
r
ch
a
s
ingpow
e
ro
fc
ap
i
- c
a
b
l
er
a
t
e
,on
i
o
ni
nth
to
ck
so
f
f
e
r
ap
i
t
a
lv
a
lu
e.Common s
t
i
on
saf
a
i
rch
an
c
ea
ts
imp
lym
a
in
t
a
in
- t
f8
.
6p
e
r
c
en
tay
e
a
r
.A po
r
t
fo
l
io s
a
lo
ign
i
f
i
c
an
t
ly low
e
rcu
r
r
en
t in
com
e
r
ch
a
s
ingpow
e
r
,p
rob
ab
lyl
i
e
s inv
e
s
t
ed60 p
e
r
c
en
ti
n common
P
l
tJ15eTumt
o
Pag
e24
i
ngpu
Z% Foundn
t
ion
~.~,
Ma
r
ch /Ap
r
i
l1981
.
J
'
,
"
�c
~
A final check on the reasonableness
of
a minimum distribution rate of 5
Table ·V
percent of market value was run for
5 Years: 1975 through 1979
the 30-year period ending with 1979.
On the assumption that S1,000 was
invested at the end of 1949, 60 pert r ~
Compound Avg.
Compound Aug.
"Real" Annual Rate
Income
Annual Rate of
cent in common stocks, 30 percent in
YiLM
of Appreciation
Appreciation
corporate bonds, and 10 percent in
Treasury Bills, with a 5 percent disStandard & Poor's
"'[)3ribution rate, the market value of the
4.7%
9.5%
Composite
1.3%
rtfolio would have held its own
(
with
inflation in the economy
Long Term High
through
1973. But from 1974
Grade Bonds
-2.6
8.3
-10.0
through 1979, the purchasing power
Treasury Bills
6.7
o
o
would have dropped below that original S1,000, to less than $700 by the
60-30-10 Mix
end of 1979. As already noted. keeping up with inflation in the economy
coupled with a reduced likelihood of appreciation. So the s pend-all- generally may not be good enough
loss of real capital value. The foun- income rule may not be successful. for a private foundation. On the asdation seeking the greatest chance of But the rule is not needed anyway, sumption that inflation in the kinds
maintaining the purchasing power of since the "minimum investment re- of activities supported by private
its investments will be driven to the turn" distribution rule is sufficient to foundations is 1 percent a year above
lowest yielding common stocks, which accomplish the Congressional purarion represented by the Congenerally constitute the most risky se- pose .
su er Price Index, the $1,000 incurities available. The foundation ..---------------4....-~stment at the end of 1949 'coupled
choosing a prudent balance between
with a 5 percent distribution rate
risk and return has been forced in rewould have maintained its purchasing power through 1972, with the
cent years to accept a high current income and a substantial deterioration
real value of the portfolio dropping
in real capital value. What the disin 1973 and subsequent years, to a
tribution requirement in Section
little over $500 at the end of 1979.
4942 has done is to create a situation
A belief that investment experience
in which the only chance a private
through 1972 is a better guide to the
foundation has of minimizing capital
future than experience since 1972
depreciation is to pursue an extraorwould support a minimum distribudinarily high risk investment
tion rate of 5 percent as consistent
strategy. Any reasonable balance bewith the expectation that a private
tween risk and return must lead infoundation could distribute this
evitably to erosion of the real value of
amount each year and still expect to
the portfolio.
hold its own with inflation. But an
A distribution rule that forces this
'expectation
that the )'ears since 1972
About the Author
choice upon a private foundation is
are also a guide to what we can ex pect
harmful to foundations and to the
J. Peter Williamson is professor in the future would suggest that a 5
public they serve. What, then, is the
percent distribution rate is too high.
of Business Administration at the
purpose of the requirement that all
In any case, the Congressional purAmos Tuck School of Business
income be spent? Presumably assurpose
of limiting growth of foundaAdministration at Dartmouth Colance that a foundation will not hoard
tions
at the expense of current dislege. He is the author of a number
its assets, piling up capital while
tributions
is served best by the "minof books and articles on legal,
doing little for the public benefit. But
imum
investment
return" distribufinancial, and taxation subjects and
a foundation could, if it were willing
tion. The additional requirement that
has conducted extensive research
to take the risk, invest largely in assets
current
income be entirely distribuon the financing and the investproducing little income so as to
ted
is
not
necessary as we have seen,
ments of nonprofit organizations.
maximize the likelihood of capital
and has only perverse results.
fD
24
Foundation NroJJ, March I Apri{ 1981
•
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby Papers
Subject
The topic of the resource
Charities
Family foundations--Michigan
Philanthropy and society
Description
An account of the resource
The Russell Mawby papers document the life and work of Michigan-born Russell Mawby from 1928 to the present. Mawby was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for twenty-five years and is recognized for his work in the area of philanthropy in the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
The digital collection includes a selection of field notes, speeches, itineraries, and other materials.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell G.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby Papers (JCPA-01). Johnson Center for Philanthropy Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1938-2012
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Source
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby papers, JCPA-01</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01_1981-03-30_RMawby_SPE
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby testimony on Senate bill 464.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell
Description
An account of the resource
Testimony given before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance for the Legislation and Regulations Committee of the Council on Foundations on S. 464, March 30, 1981.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Grand Valley State University Special Collections & University Archives
Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philanthropy and society
Family foundations--Michigan
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Charities
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Legislation
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1981-03-30
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/87b2310c7aa1c00e04de9488061500c3.pdf
73f6071ae0992252a6750bb0b54a2ad1
PDF Text
Text
SENATE F
INANCE COMM
ITTEE
SUBCO~MITTEE
ON FOUNDAT
ION
S
T
e
s
t
imony by D
r
. R
u
s
s
e
l
lG
. M
aw
by
a
tO
c
tobe
r2
,1
9
7
3Subcom
:
r
.
J
.
itt
e
eH
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
SUMMARY OF PERTINENTPO
INTS
1
.
Th
ea
n
a
l
y
s
e
sby t
h
eComm
i
s
s
ion on Found
a
t
ion
s andP
r
i
va
t
eP
h
i
lan
t
h
r
o
p
y (Th
e
P
e
t
e
r
s
o
n Co~~ssion) wh
i
ch l
e
dt
ot
h
een
a
c
tm
en
to
ft
h
e6p
e
rc
e
n
td
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nr
u
l
ei
nS
e
c
t
i
o
n4
9
4
2o
ft
h
eI
n
t
e
r
n
a
lR
ev
enu
e Cod
eo
f1
9
5
4r
e
f
l
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
ei
n
f
o
rm
a
t
i
o
nandm
i
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
no
ft
h
ea
c
t
u
a
ls
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
ep
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
lc
o
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
nr
e
f
l
e
c
t
e
di
nt
h
eP
e
t
e
r
s
o
nR
epo
r
t
w
a
s t
h
a
tp
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
so
fp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sh
adn
o
tp
rodu
c
ed
r
a
t
e
so
fr
e
t
u
r
n
st
h
o
u
g
h
tt
oh
av
eb
e
en p
rodu
c
edbymu
tu
a
l
f
u
n
d
s
. Th
i
sc
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
nw
a
sb
a
s
e
dupon a on
ey
e
a
ra
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
and
w
a
s e
r
ron
eou
si
nt
e
rm
so
fc
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
gp
e
r
fo
rm
an
c
e
.
2
.
Th
e 6p
e
rc
e
n
tpa
y
o
u
tr
e
q
u
i
r
em
e
n
tenac
tedby a S
e
n
a
t
eF
l
o
o
rAm
e
ndme
n
tand
l
a
t
e
ra
c
c
e
p
t
e
dby t
h
eCon
f
e
r
en
c
e Comm
i
t
t
e
em
and
a
t
e
s t
h
ec
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
gi
n
v
a
s
i
o
n
o
fco
rpu
sby p
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
,an un
sound p
r
a
c
t
i
c
ei
np
r
u
d
e
n
tf
i
s
c
a
l
m
an
ag
em
en
t
.
S
t
u
d
i
e
s showt
h
a
tt
h
e6p
e
rc
e
n
tp
a
y
o
u
tr
u
l
er
e
s
u
l
t
si
ns
h
o
r
t
t
e
rmi
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
st
oc
h
a
r
i
t
yb
u
tt
h
a
tt
h
ed
im
i
n
u
t
i
o
no
fa
ss
e
t
so
f
p
r
i
v
a
t
efound
a
t
i
o
n
st
om
e
e
t t
h
ep
a
y
o
u
tr
equ
i
r
em
en
ti
ss
o
d
r
a
s
t
i
ca
st
oc
au
s
el
o
n
gt
e
rmr
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
si
nt
h
e
i
rp
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
i
c
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
sf
o
rc
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
ep
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
.
3
.
Th
eP
e
t
e
r
s
o
n Comm
i
s
s
ion R
epo
r
ta
l
s
oe
r
r
e
di
na
s
sum
ingt
h
a
ta
n
n
u
a
li
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
i
nc
o
s
t
si
nt
h
ee
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
landh
e
a
l
t
hs
e
c
t
o
r
so
ft
h
ee
conomy w
e
r
e no
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
tt
h
a
ni
nt
h
ee
conomy g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y andi
t
ss
t
u
d
i
e
sw
e
r
eb
a
s
e
dupon a
p
r
e
sump
t
ion o
fan a
n
n
u
a
lc
o
s
ti
n
c
r
e
a
s
eo
f2 p
e
rc
e
n
t
.
H
igh
e
re
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
nandt
h
eh
e
a
l
t
hs
e
c
t
o
r
sa
r
el
a
b
o
r
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
ei
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
swh
e
r
ei
t
i
sd
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
tt
oa
c
h
i
e
v
ega
i
n
si
n
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
ye
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
di
ngood
s
-p
rodu
c
ing i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s
. Co
s
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
si
nt
h
eh
e
a
l
t
hande
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
ls
e
c
t
o
r
sg
r
e
a
t
l
yex
c
e
edt
h
o
s
ei
nt
h
ee
conomy g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
,t
h
u
sp
u
t
t
i
n
gp
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
on t
h
ea
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
so
ff
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
st
oc
o
n
t
i
n
u
et
om
a
i
n
t
a
i
nt
h
e
i
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
ec
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
st
os
o
c
i
e
t
y
.
4
.
Un
le
s
st
h
e6p
e
rc
e
n
tm
in
imum d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nr
u
l
eo
fSe
c
t
i
o
n4
9
4
2i
sr
e
d
u
c
e
d
t
h
er
u
l
ew
i
l
lp
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
l
yim
p
a
i
rt
h
ee
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
so
fa
l
lf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
andev
en e
l
im
i
n
a
t
em
any o
f th
em
,t
ot
h
ed
e
t
r
im
en
to
f so
c
i
e
t
y
.
I
fp
r
i
v
a
t
eph
i
l
an
th
ropyi
st
oc
o
n
t
i
n
u
ei
t
sh
i
s
t
o
r
i
cc
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nt
oAm
e
r
i
c
an l
i
f
e
,ch
ang
e
si
nt
h
ec
u
r
r
e
n
tl
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
-i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
ga r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
nint
h
ep
a
y
o
u
tr
e
q
u
i
r
em
en
ta
r
en
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
�SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOUNDATIONS
Testimony by Dr. Russell G. Mawby
at October 2, 1973 Subcommittee Hearings
My name is Russell G. Mawby, and I am President of the W. K. Kellogg
Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.
On April 10 of this year the W. K.
Kellogg Foundation testified before the Committee on Ways and Means of
the U. S. House of Representatives on the subject of the impact of the
minimum distribution rule (Section 4942 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954) on Foundations.
Much of the brief testimony which I give today will
parallel the testimony presented at those hearings.
supported by a study entitled
If
My testimony is also
The Impact of the Minimun Distribution Rule
on Foundations" by Dr. Norman B. Ture.
A copy of that study is submitted
along with my testimony for incorporation into the record.
Since my testimony is concerned with the minimum distribution rule as
enacted by the Tax Reform Act of 1969, my remarks will be restricted to
Section 4942 of the Internal Revenue Code.
However, I would like it to
be known for the record that we share the concern that the
4%
excise tax
levied under Section 4940 should be eliminated or, in the alternative,
reduced to a rate which would equal the audit costs the tax is intended
to defray.
Similarly, the Kellogg Foundation joins other Foundations con-
cerned over the substantial reductions in assets which have been occasioned
by forced diversifications of Foundation holdings, both to meet the arbitrary
percentage standard of the 4942 payout requirements and to satisfy the
divestiture rules of Section 4943.
�2
Before briefly setting fo rth the legislative hi s tory concerning sect ion
4942, I would remind you of the r equiremen t s of the provi sion; that is,
private foundation s must make annual dis tributions in the amount of the
gre ater of either their earned inc ome or a fixe d percent age of the current
market value of their investment assets.
The rationale behind this concept was to insure th at current distributions
are sufficient to justify tax benefits dono rs might have received, and to
prevent private foundations from investing in the stock of companies
which retain most of their earnings and thereby delay .charitable expenditures commensurate with the value of their assets.
avoid this delay of benefit to charity, section
In order to
4942 requires private
foundations to make annual distributions at a prescribed level, even if an
invasion of capital may be necessary.
Many find this approach objectionable, not only because it mandates an
encroachment on capit al, but also b ecause many private foundations that
are currently able to support ma j or charitable programs are able to do so
only because their assets have been historically invested to provide a
reasonable appreciation in value as well as a fair current return.
To
illustrate this point, the Kellogg Foundation historically has distributed
all of its income.
Over the years the Foundation's assets have doubled
in val ue every ten years.
Most importantly, because of this appreciation.
the payout to charity has more than doubled each decade.
As I will show
lat er, an annual i nvas i on of principal would have made thi s re cor d of
ch arit ab l e contributions i mpossible.
�3
Iwou
ld emph
a
s
i
z
et
h
a
tp
h
i
l
o
s
o
p
h
i
c
a
l
l
yI s
u
p
p
o
r
tt
h
econ
c
ep
to
fa m
i
n
im
um
annu
a
lc
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
ed
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
. How
ev
e
rt I amcon
c
e
rn
edw
i
t
ht
h
em
e
thod
o
fd
e
t
e
rm
i
n
i
n
g su
cha d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
na
ss
e
tf
o
r
t
hi
ns
e
c
t
i
o
n4942
; andev
en
i
f
t
h
a
tm
e
thod o
fd
e
t
e
rm
i
n
a
t
i
o
nw
e
r
ea
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
et t
h
e6
p
e
r
c
e
n
tr
a
t
es
h
o
u
l
d
b
er
edu
c
edb
e
c
au
s
ei
t
i
sh
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
yu
n
r
e
a
s
l
i
t
i
c
.
Mov
ing nowt
ot
h
el
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
eh
i
s
t
o
r
y
,t
h
em
i
n
im
um d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nr
u
l
eh
a
s
i
t
so
r
i
g
i
ni
nt
h
e"1965T
r
e
a
su
ry R
epo
r
to
nP
r
i
v
a
t
e Found
a
t
ion
s
"s
u
bm
i
t
t
e
d
t
ot
h
eHou
s
e Comm
i
t
t
e
e on W
a
y
s.
andM
e
an
s
.
Th
a
tr
e
p
o
r
te
spou
s
edt
h
et
h
e
o
r
y
t
h
a
tt
h
e
r
es
h
o
u
l
db
eac
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
nb
e
tw
e
ent
h
ei
i~
t
a
xb
e
n
e
f
i
tt
o
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
ndono
r
s andt
h
et
im
eo
ffound
a
t
iong
r
a
n
t
so
rb
e
n
e
f
i
t
st
oc
h
a
r
i
t
y
.
How
ev
e
r
, i
t
a
l
s
on
o
t
e
dt
h
a
tt
h
ein
com
eo
fa
s
s
e
t
sh
e
l
dby found
a
t
ion
ss
h
o
u
l
d
b
e on a p
a
r
i
t
yw
i
t
ho
t
h
e
rt
ax
ex
emp
te
n
t
i
t
i
e
ssu
cha
sc
o
l
l
e
g
e
s andu
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i
e
s
. A
l
s
o
,i
t
s
t
a
t
e
dt
h
a
tt
h
er
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
no
fc
a
p
i
t
a
lb
y found
a
t
ion
si
s
j
u
s
t
i
f
i
a
b
l
e
.
Th
er
e
p
o
r
tcon
c
lud
edt
h
a
ta r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
ein
com
ee
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
twou
ld b
ei
nt
h
e
r
ang
eo
f3t
o31
/
2p
e
r
c
e
n
t
. Thu
s
,i
t
i
sobv
iou
st
h
a
tt
h
er
e
p
o
r
td
i
dn
o
t
i
n
t
e
n
dt
or
e
q
u
i
r
efound
a
t
ion
st
od
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
et
oc
h
a
r
i
t
ya
n amoun
tt
h
a
twou
ld
r
e
q
u
i
r
ed
im
inu
t
ion o
fco
rpu
sa
ss
e
c
t
i
o
n4
9
4
2c
l
e
a
r
l
yr
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
.
Th
ef
i
r
s
th
i
n
tt
h
a
tt
h
em
in
imum r
a
t
ep
r
o
p
o
s
a
la
s adop
t
edi
n1969 m
igh
tb
e
abov
et
h
e3
-t
o31
/
2
p
e
r
c
e
n
tl
e
v
e
lapp
e
a
r
si
nfo
rm
e
rS
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
yo
ft
h
e
T
r
e
a
s
u
r
yF
ow
l
e
r
'
ss
t
a
t
em
e
n
tt
oCong
r
e
s
so
nD
e
c
emb
e
r1
1
, 1968
,w
h
e
nh
eu
s
ed
an ex
amp
l
ewh
i
ch a
s
sum
eda 5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t in
com
ee
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
. Th
i
s ex
amp
l
ew
a
s
a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
l
yt
h
eb
a
s
i
sf
o
rt
h
eComm
i
t
t
e
eo
nW
a
y
s andM
e
a
n
s a
d
o
p
t
i
n
ga 5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
m
in
imum p
a
y
o
u
t
. Th
eS
en
a
t
eF
in
an
c
e Comm
i
t
t
e
ea
c
c
ep
t
edt
h
e5
p
e
r
c
e
n
tl
e
v
e
l
r
e
comm
end
edby t
h
eHou
s
e comm
i
t
t
e
e
.
�4
O
nD
ecembe
r6
, 1969
,S
ena
t
o
rPe
r
c
yin af
l
o
o
ram
e
ndm
en
t w
h
i
c
hw
a
s pas
s
e
d
,
r
a
i
s
edt
h
el
e
v
e
lf
rom5 p
er
c
e
n
tto 6 pe
r
c
e
n
t,wh
ich w
a
s ac
ce
p
t
e
dby th
e
con
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
on t
h
e
S
en
a
to
r Pe
r
c
yexPl
a
in
edh
i
s ac
t
ion w
a
sb
a
sedm
a
in
ly
o~~i
o ~ n
ion
o
fM
r. P
e
te
rG
.P
e
te
r
s
o
n
, Ch
a
i
rm
an o
ft
h
eComm
i
s
s
ion
on F
o
u
n
d
a
t
ion
s andP
r
i
v
a
t
e Ph
ilan
th
ropy, who s
u
gg
e
stedth
a
t ap
r
o
p
e
rr
a
t
e
o
fr
e
t
u
r
nf
o
rfoun
d
a
t
i
o
n
swou
ld a
l
lows
u
ch e
n
t
i
t
i
e
st
op
a
y
o
u
tb
e
twe
en
6 and 8p
e
r
c
e
n
ta
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
. Thu
s
,t
h
e6
p
e
rc
e
n
tp
ayou
tr
equ
i
r
em
e
n
tr
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
a lO
a
p
e
r
c
e
n
ti
n
c
r
e
a
s
ei
nt
h
em
in
imum i
n
i
t
i
a
l
l
yp
ropo
s
edbyt
h
eT
r
e
a
s
u
r
y
,
and
,i
na
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,i
t
i
sp
r
em
i
s
edupon andr
e
f
l
e
c
t
st
h
ei
n
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
ec
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
o
ft
h
eP
e
t
e
r
s
o
nr
e
p
o
r
t
. I
ti
si
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
gt
on
o
t
et
h
a
t
,i
ni
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
i
n
gh
i
s
f
l
o
o
ram
endm
en
t
,
S
e
n
a
t
o
rP
e
r
cy f
u
r
t
h
e
rst
a
t
e
dt
h
a
t
,mo
r
e im
p
o
r
t
a
n
tt
h
a
n
t
h
ep
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
rp
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
,a
r
et
h
ea
s
sump
t
ion
s on wh
i
ch t
h
ep
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
h
o
u
l
db
eb
a
s
e
d
: "Th
ep
ayou
tr
equ
i
r
em
en
ts
h
o
u
l
db
eh
i
g
h enough t
or
e
q
u
i
r
e
th
em(
p
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
)t
oi
n
v
e
s
tt
h
e
i
rfund
sp
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
. Th
ep
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
h
o
u
l
dn
o
tb
es
oh
i
g
ha
st
oamoun
tt
oa d
e
l
a
y
e
dd
e
a
t
hs
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
.
"
To i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
eo
u
r conce
rn
sw
i
t
ht
h
ep
ayou
tp
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
, Iw
i
l
lu
s
et
h
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
eo
ft
h
eK
e
l
logg Found
a
t
ion a
sar
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
ec
a
s
e
. Ou
r
foun
d
e
r
,W
. K
. K
e
l
l
o
g
g
,r
e
a
l
i
z
e
da t
o
t
a
lt
a
xb
e
n
e
f
i
t(
in
com
e
,g
i
f
t
, and
e
s
t
a
t
e
)o
fa
p
p
r
o
x
im
a
t
e
l
y$364
,000 on g
i
f
t
so
f$45 m
i
l
l
i
o
n wh
i
ch h
em
ad
et
o
andi
nb
e
h
a
l
fo
ft
h
eFound
a
t
ion
. F
rom t
h
a
t$45 m
i
l
l
i
o
nt
h
eK
e
l
logg Found
a
t
ion
h
a
sd
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
di
ne
x
c
e
s
so
f$272 ~i
ion
f
o
rc
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
epu
rpo
s
e
s andt
h
e
t
o
t
a
lf
a
i
rm
a
rk
e
t v
a
l
u
eo
ft
h
ea
s
s
e
t
st
o
d
a
yi
sa
p
p
r
o
x
im
a
t
e
l
y$576 m
i
l
l
i
o
n
.
Th
e
t
o
t
a
lo
ft
h
e
s
ea
s
s
e
t
sa
re m
a
in
ta
ined onb
e
h
a
l
fo
ft
h
eF
o
u
n
d
a
t
ion i
ntwos
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
s
,wh
i
ch w
er
e
f
e
rt
oa
s"
K
e
l
logg
" and "D
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
i
e
d
.
" Th
eK
e
l
l
ogg
po
r
tfo
lio c
o
n
s
i
s
t
se
n
t
i
re
l
yo
f K
e
l
l
o
gg C
o
.s
t
o
ckw
i
t
h av
a
l
u
eo
f$529 m
i
l
l
i
o
n
.
T
he D
ive
r
s
i
f
i
e
d po
r
tf
o
l
i
ocon
s
is
t
so
fs
toc
k
s
, bo
n
d
s
, andot
h
e
ri
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
�·.
5
investments and has an approximate value of $47 million.
Through the years,
Kellogg has consistently outperformed the Diversified portfolio which is
used to measure the merits of diversification.
A principal contention reflected in the Peterson report was that the portfolios
of private foundations had not produced the rate of return thought to have
been produced by mutual funds.
By any measure of return, the Kellogg
Foundation has outproduced mutual funds for the period covered by the Peterson
report and has continued to do so since.
For example, in the last 7 years
the Kellogg Foundation's income, because of holdings in the Kellogg Co.,
has continued to be substantially greater than it would have been had its
income been derived entirely from diversified investments,
The increase
in income for our 1972 tax year compared to 1966 was 66.5 percent for
the Kellogg holding as compared to an increase of 12.8 percent on the
foundation's diversified portfolio.
It is evident that the sale of Kellogg
stock and the di versi fication of funds would result in a lower return to
charity over the years.
Year Ended
August 31
Kellogg
Net Income From
Kellogg Stock
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
$11,272,650
12,177,062
14,438,092
14,890,298
17,606,034
17,349,265
18,775,544
%Increase
Over 1967
8.0%
28.0
32.0
56.1
53.9
66.5
Diversified
Foundation Income
From Other Investments
$1,852,705
1,954,008
1,834,420
1,831,344
1,711,651
1,941,018
2,090,946
%Increase
Over 1967
5.4%
(.9)
(1.1)
(7.6)
4.7
12.8
Not only was the Peterson report incorrect in regard to performance, but
its premise that a pegged payout requirement would be good for charity is
also wrong.
For example, had the minimum distribution rule been in effect
�6
at 6 percent from 1934, when the t r us t cons i s t ed of 221,000 shares of
Kel l ogg stock, with a then mar ket value of $38 milli on, the foll owing
would have occurred:
1. From 1934 through 1972, the trust made an actual distribution of
$222 million.
Had the minimum di s t rib ut i on rule been applicable,
distributions of $259 million ( or an increas e of $37 million) would
have been made;
2. To meet that payout requirement, the trust would have had to sell
the equivalent of 18 million shares with a market value of $265
million; t he r e f or e , the trust's holding would have been reduced to a
market value of $265 million; and thus
3.
The short-term higher return to charity of $37 million would have cost
$265 million in corpus value, thereby reducing the current size of
the trust by 50 percent.
Further, for 1973-74, the distribution from
the reduced assets would have been only $10 million rather than the
$20 million which will in fact be distributed .
Wi th 3 years of experience under the 1969 law, there has been time to
examine how section 4942 will operate to undermine overall foundation
grants, and there has been the opportunity to further examine the assumptions
of the Peterson report.
For this purpose, seven Foundations* commissioned a
s tudy by Dr. Norman B. Ture entit led "The Impact of the Mi ni mum Distribution
Rule on Foundations" .
This is the s tudy to which I referred in my introductory
*The Hormel Foun dat i on , the Kel l og g Foundation, the Kres ge Foundation, the Lilly
Foundation, the McClellan Foundation, the Pew Memorial Trust, and the Woodruff
Foundat ion .
/
�7
r
em
a
rk
s
. T
h
ef
i
n
d
i
n
g
sand c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
so
ft
h
a
ts
t
u
d
y
,a
sb
r
i
e
f
l
ysumm
a
r
i
z
ed
i
ni
t
sow
nl
angu
ag
ea
r
ea
sf
o
l
l
ow
s
:
i~s
anym
i
n
im
um d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nr
u
l
ewh
i
ch i
g
n
o
r
e
st
h
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
'
sr
a
t
eo
f
r
e
t
u
r
nw
i
l
lh
av
e ah
i
g
h
l
yd
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
,d
i
s
c
r
im
i
n
a
t
o
r
yandp
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
c
a
p
r
i
c
i
o
u
simp
a
c
to
n found
a
t
ion
sando
nt
h
e
i
rl
o
n
g
t
e
rmc
a
p
a
c
i
t
yt
os
u
p
p
o
r
t
c
h
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
.
S
e
cond
,t
h
e(P
e
t
e
r
s
o
nComm
i
s
s
ion
) c
o
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
nt
h
a
tt
h
einv
e
s
tm
en
tp
e
r
fo
rm
an
c
e
o
ff
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
si
sr
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
ypoo
ri
sb
a
s
e
do
ni
n
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
ei
n
f
o
rm
a
t
i
o
nand
i
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
es
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
lm
e
a
su
r
e
; t
h
er
e
c
o
r
d
so
ffound
a
t
ion
sf
o
rwh
i
ch
d
a
t
aw
a
s a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
ei
nt
h
ep
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
no
ft
h
i
s(Tu
r
e
)r
e
p
o
r
tc
e
r
t
a
i
n
l
ydo
n
o
ts
u
p
p
o
r
tt
h
i
sc
o
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
i
r
d
,n
o soundev
id
en
c
ew
a
s adv
an
c
ed (byt
h
eP
e
t
e
r
s
o
n Comm
i
s
s
ion
)t
os
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
ev
i
ewt
h
a
tt
h
ea
l
l
e
g
e
d
l
ypoo
ri
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
tp
e
r
fo
rm
an
c
eo
ff
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
si
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
dt
ot
h
ec
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
no
ft
h
e
i
ri
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
ta
s
s
e
t
s
.
F
o
u
r
t
h
,i
t
i
sn
e
i
t
h
e
rr
e
a
l
i
s
t
i
cn
o
rr
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
et
oa
s
sum
et
h
a
ta m
i
n
im
um
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nr
u
l
ew
i
l
lr
e
s
u
l
ti
ns
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
ti
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
si
nt
h
er
a
t
eo
f
r
e
t
u
r
no
nf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
ni
n
v
e
s
tm
e
n
t
s
.
F
i
n
a
l
l
y
,t
h
e(Tu
r
e
)r
e
p
o
r
tcon
c
lud
e
st
h
a
tt
h
et
a
xs
a
v
i
n
g
sa
l
l
e
g
e
d
l
yr
e
a
l
i
z
e
d
by t
h
o
s
ee
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
gfound
a
t
ion
sa
r
e
,i
na
l
ll
i
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
,v
e
ry sm
a
l
l
. Found
a
t
ion
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
st
oc
h
a
r
i
t
yh
av
er
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
da s
i
z
e
a
b
l
eamoun
to
fb
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
et
ot
h
efo
r
egon
et
a
xr
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
.
F
i
n
a
l
l
y
,T
h
eP
e
t
e
r
s
o
nR
epo
r
ta
s
sum
edt
h
a
tt
h
ec
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
es
e
r
v
i
c
e
swh
i
ch
af
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nno
rm
a
l
ly s
u
p
p
o
r
t
sw
i
l
ln
o
tr
i
s
ei
nc
o
s
tany f
a
s
t
e
rt
h
a
nt
h
e
/
�8
general rate of inflation and for that purpose assumed a rate of inflation
of 2 percent.
The report's assumption is wrong, for it completely disregards
the fact that the organizations supported by foundations have little possibility
of significant gains in productivity.
Let me cite a few quick examples.
Higher education is a labor-intensive service sector of the economy in
which it is difficult to achieve the gains in productivity that are
experienced in goods-producing industries.
Educational costs per credit
hour consistently rose more rapidly than the consumer price index from
1953-54 to 1966-67.
Over the period as a whole, educational costs rose
at an annual average rate of 3.5%, as compared with a rate of 1.6% for
the consumer price index--a difference of 1.9%.1
The most noticeable feature of the budgets of all institutions of higher
education is how fast they have gone up in the years since World War II.
Total educational and general expenditures on current account by all
institutions of higher education went up from less than $1 billion in
1945-46 to more than $7 billion in 1963-64.
Total educational and general
expenditures less expenditures on organized research have gone up, on the
average, more than 7% a year at all private universities.
The direct
instructional cost per student over the period 1955-56 works out to an
average annual rate of increase of 8.3% for all private universities. 2
1 Source: "The More Effective Use of Resources--An Imperative for Higher
Education," A Report and Recommendations by the Carnegie Commission on
Higher Education, June 1972, pp. 33-38.
2 Source: "Economic Pressures on the Major Private Universities," vlilliam
G. Bowen, Reprinted from "The Economics and Financing of Higher Education
in the United States," a Compendium of Papers Submitted to the Joint Economic
Committee, Congress of the U.S., Government Printing Office, 1969, pp.399-439.
/
�9
In the period 1958-71, the average operating budget for medical schools
increased from $2,056,000 to $8,475,000, an increase of 412%.
The mean
salary for basic science faculty and for all ranks of clinical science
faculty increased 59% and 66% respectively.3
A major program concern and site of W. K. Kellogg Foundation expenditures
has been the hospital field.
The Foundation has assisted a wide variety
of programs in community hospitals such as in recent support for coronary
care units and the improvement of burn patient care facilities and services.
The increase of such support by the Foundation has substantially paralleled
the general rise of medical care and hospital costs in the United States.
Such costs have risen at an annual rate of 11.8% between the years 1950-1970
and the expenses per patient day during the same period rose at an annual
rate of 8.6%.
4
In conclusion, from the foregoing these things are apparent:
1.
The analysis which led to enactment of the 6% distribution rule
reflected inaccurate information and misinterpretation of the actual
si tuation.
2.
The 6% payout requirement mandates the continuing invasion of corpus
by private foundations, an unsound practice in prudent fiscal management.
3 Bradford, Malt and Oates, "The Rising Cost of Local Public Services,"
National Tax Journal.
4 Source: Hospitals, J.A.H.A.
�1
0
3
. Co
s
ti
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
si
nt
h
ec
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
es
e
r
v
i
c
e
ss
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
dby f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
ex
c
e
edt
h
eg
e
n
e
r
a
li
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
yr
i
s
e
,t
h
u
sp
u
t
t
i
n
gp
r
e
s
s
u
r
e on f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
yt
oc
o
n
t
i
n
u
et
om
a
i
n
t
a
i
nt
h
e
i
rr
e
l
a
t
i
v
ec
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nt
os
o
c
i
e
t
y
.
Un
l
e
s
st
h
e6% m
in
imum d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nr
u
l
ei
sr
e
d
u
c
e
d
,i
t
i
sc
l
e
a
rt
h
a
t
t
h
ep
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
ss
e
tf
o
r
t
hi
nt
h
eP
e
t
e
r
s
o
nR
epo
r
t and i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
di
nS
e
c
t
i
o
n
4942w
i
l
lp
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
l
yim
p
a
i
rt
h
ee
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
so
f
ev
en e
l
im
i
n
a
t
e~
n
~
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sand
o
fth
em
,t
ot
h
ed
e
t
r
im
e
n
to
fs
o
c
i
e
t
y
.
I
f
p
r
i
v
a
t
ep
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
yi
st
oc
o
n
t
i
n
u
ei
t
sh
i
s
t
o
r
i
cc
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
nt
o
~
i
n
l
i
f
e
,ch
ang
e
si
nt
h
ec
u
r
r
e
n
tl
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
ga r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
nt
h
ep
ayou
tr
e
q
u
i
r
em
e
n
t
a
r
en
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
. We u
rg
ey
o
u
ra
d
o
p
t
i
o
no
fsu
ch
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s t
oi
n
s
u
r
et
h
a
to
u
rs
o
c
i
e
t
yw
i
l
lc
o
n
t
i
n
u
et
ob
e
n
e
f
i
tf
romt
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
v
ea
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
so
fp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
ank you
.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby Papers
Subject
The topic of the resource
Charities
Family foundations--Michigan
Philanthropy and society
Description
An account of the resource
The Russell Mawby papers document the life and work of Michigan-born Russell Mawby from 1928 to the present. Mawby was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for twenty-five years and is recognized for his work in the area of philanthropy in the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
The digital collection includes a selection of field notes, speeches, itineraries, and other materials.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell G.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby Papers (JCPA-01). Johnson Center for Philanthropy Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1938-2012
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Source
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby papers, JCPA-01</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01_1973-10-02_RMawby_SPE
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby testimony on the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell
Description
An account of the resource
Testimony given before the Senate Finance Committee Subcommittee on Foundations hearings on the minimum distribution rule (Section 4942 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954), October, 2, 1973.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Grand Valley State University Special Collections & University Archives
Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philanthropy and society
Family foundations--Michigan
Charities
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Legislation
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1973-10-02
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/a6cca9b482dde88002f5dae6a683aac7.pdf
effb39967984dd5973c455211738d699
PDF Text
Text
TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL G. MAWBY
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
W.K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION
HOUSE TAXATION COMMITTEE
STATE OF MONTANA
APRIL 3,1995
Good morning . My name is Russ Mawby, and I am chairman of the
Board and chief executive officer of the W .K. Kellogg Foundation,
located in Battle Creek, Michigan.
I am privileged to be here today and truly appreciate this opportunity to
visit with you about a very important matter.
As you may know, the Kellogg Foundation, one of the world's largest
private foundations, has long been committed to supporting the
development of systems to encourage philanthropy and volunteerism
nationally -
and at the community level. This interest has led to our
support for developing and strengthening community foundations in
the state of Michigan.
�We at the Kellogg Foundation believe in the value of community
foundations -
the most exciting institutional development in
philanthropy today. Community foundations bring permanence and
flexibility to those organizations working to solve issues at the
community level. Their ability to transfer working assets from one
generation to another, their leadership , and their broad viewpoint
make them critical components of what we acknowledge as a civil
society. In so many ways , they are a major part of the solution for
dealing with issues and concerns at the community level.
Every citizen in the state of Michigan is indeed fortunate to be served
by a community foundation in their local city, township, or village ...
partly as a result of the Michigan Community Foundation Tax Credit,
which was enacted in 1988.
The Kellogg Foundation supports such a tax credit because it helps
to build the assets of community foundations . We support the
development of community foundations because the most exciting
solutions to today's problems are those not coming from Washington ,
2
�or even from Helena. They are coming from our local communities.
Local leaders are the ones who are closest to problems and the ones
best equipped to solve them.
Local leaders cannot solve community problems all by themselves.
They need arrows for their quivers, and perhaps the sharpest arrow
is the community foundation.
Community foundations are the most community-based of all
philanthropic institutions. They are the most flexible, and they can
support a wide range of initiatives to improve the community. Their
activities can range from economic development to social services,
from recreation to health care, from soup kitchens to neighborhood
development.
But community foundations are more than money-givers. They also
serve as conveners for important community meetings, as "honest
brokers" to help build teams of organizations to solve problems. In
short, community foundations serve as a catalyst for change. Since
3
�they serve all the interests in the community, they can bring all of them
together to make things happen.
Because the trustees and staff of community foundations live in their
communities, they can help new initiatives with their personal
involvement. as well as with funds . We believe the credit helps to
build the capacity of these organizations to fund and to lead.
Today, I would like to encourage your enactment of a community
foundation tax credit for the residents of Montana. This innovative
legislation by the state of Montana would provide a strong incentive to
encourage charitably-inclined individu als to give to their local
communities.
Such a tax credit would provide an incentive for other charities to talk .
to community foundations regarding the establishment of permanent
endowments that are restricted for the use of their organizations.
4
�Because community foundations have the capacity to manage
restricted funds for other nonprofits, agencies such as United Way,
Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Hospitals, Hospice, women's shelters, 4-H
Clubs, museums, libraries, school systems, and others have
established endowment funds within community foundations
throughout Michigan. All of these endowment funds qualify for a tax
credit.
With such a tax credit, many of these organizations in Montana
would, for the first time, be able to strategically plan for their longterm financial security through permanent assets. This is the best
"win/win" strategy for everyone in the community.
Without a tax credit for community foundations, these other
organizations might be years away from having the organizational
capacity to handle legally complex planned gifts . By having the
community foundation manage the endowments, organizations will
receive the benefits of long-term, stabilized funding.
5
�At the same time, the community foundation can grow through
managing these assets more efficiently, thereby reducing the costs
of managing these funds , while achieving greater growth and returns.
In turn, these organizations could receive the tax credit for their
permanently endowed funds. The tax credit would provide a tool and
incentive to build this community trust between agencies.
I see the leveraging opportunity in this small tax advantage as a way
to build your communities. I would encourage you to take the long
view: that is, if you make your community strong -
the state will be
strong.
Should you pass up such a tax credit for community foundations, I
believe that you will lose the opportunity for establishing some new
philanthropists in Montana. You will lose one tool for building
collaboration at the community level. You will lose an important
outreach tool to new donors. And you will lose an incentive for your
community nonprofits to establish permanent endowment funds .
6
�We also believe that such a tax credit could serve as a catalyst in the
establishment of a network of strong community foundations to serve
communities throughout the state of Montana. Such a group of local
foundations would be positioned to tackle statewide problems through
locally-designed programs. These issues might include water and air
quality, youth development, support for the arts, and education reform.
This credit would come at a time which is critical to the building of
these local funds.
Other foundations such as Ford, Lilly, Rockefeller, Mott, Packard, and
MacArthur, as well as Kellogg, have provided funding for projects
managed by community foundations. These programs can be new
dollars coming into states to help solve local problems. The dollars
can flow throuqhout the community because the community
foundation is there to manage them.
7
�Finally, this tax credit would be an enormous help to the building of
capital , both for the community foundations and for other nonprofit
charities . I believe that this tax credit would stimulate new donors to
start to give to community foundations, and if our experience in
Michigan is any indication, they would not change their gifts to other
charities. These are new, private monies in permanent endowments
that are available to accomplish public good.
We would strongly encourage you to support what we believe would
be a very effective and beneficial tax policy.
Thank you.
S:\COMM\PUBLlC\TAXDOC
8
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby Papers
Subject
The topic of the resource
Charities
Family foundations--Michigan
Philanthropy and society
Description
An account of the resource
The Russell Mawby papers document the life and work of Michigan-born Russell Mawby from 1928 to the present. Mawby was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for twenty-five years and is recognized for his work in the area of philanthropy in the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
The digital collection includes a selection of field notes, speeches, itineraries, and other materials.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell G.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby Papers (JCPA-01). Johnson Center for Philanthropy Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1938-2012
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Source
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby papers, JCPA-01</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01_1995-04-03_RMawby_SPE
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby testimony before the House Taxation Committee
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell
Description
An account of the resource
Testimony given April 3, 1995 for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation at the State of Montana House Taxation Committee.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Grand Valley State University Special Collections & University Archives
Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philanthropy and society
Family foundations--Michigan
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Charities
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Legislation
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1995-04-03
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/8fdbad95d195464e76176712200b4bed.pdf
b1c36e2d7d7a9064553746cc9322eb4c
PDF Text
Text
THE ROLE OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
IN THE DECADE OF COMMUNITY
DR. RUSSELL G. MAWBY
Chairman and Chief Executive Offic er
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Battle Creek, Michigan
Sinc e the 1 9 9 0s seems destined to become the Decade of the Community,
ther e
will
be boundless
tremendous
impact
in
opportunities
the
local
for
community colleges
communi ties
they
serve
by
lea d e r s h i p initiatives in the areas of so cietal concern.
to
hav e
developing
I am pleased
to be invited to comment on community and the role of community colleges
in the 1990s.
In
thinking
relates
to
conc erns.
about
the
common
is
happening
good,
I
in
contemporary
wa.s . tempted
to
society
begin with
a
as
it
list
of
However, it would be presumptuous and inappropriate for me to
propose such a
f act,
what
long cafeteria list of issues,
for each of us
knowledgeable about the concerns of our world,
is,
our country,
in
our
state, and particularly, our home communities.
Instead,
I
have
observations
chosen
about
in
societal
a
broad
issues
overview
for
which
to
briefly
the
share
implications
five
for
community colleges and their leadership are rather apparent.
Observation 1:
The seeming inability of our political processes and institutions
to deal with significant issues in substantial ways
This is most vivid at the national level.
Today, Congress is struggling
ineffectively with concerns such as fiscal and financial responsibility,
�trade imbalance,
the
arts,
farm programs,
energy
policy,
foreign affairs, child care,
and
environmental
quality.
support of
Most
state
politicians are equally ineffective on matters of school finance,
state
budget, worker's compensation, and a host of other concerns.
Technology
has
politicians.
the
dramatically
the
nature
of
politics
and
New techniques of sophisticated, instantaneous polling and
influence of mass media
seem
changed
to have
forced
treatment on every issue and personality
elected 'o f f i c i a l s
to become
society and more followers of the herd.
only after consensus has been reached,
less
the
leaders
of
There is a tendency to lead
to wait and see which way
parade is going, and then rush to its head.
the
Another change, which has
influenced the political process to society's disadvantage, has been the
increase
in
number,
variety,
groups.
Collectively,
and
effectiveness
of
special
through the concept of entitlement,
interest
they have
handcuffed political responses to changing needs.
Today,
there
are
few
elected
officials
who
could
be
described
statespersons with vision, commitment, and a concern for the whole.
as
For
voters, patterns of political power also have changed dramatically, with
greater diffusion and less loyalty t.o' 'pa r t y and purpose.
The
net
effect
of
these
changes
has
been
the
lessening
of
the
government's ability, at all levels, to be a catalyst for social change.
This,
then,
ini tiatives,
suggests
an
enhanced
potential
which demonstrate new answers
to
for
societal
private-sector
needs.
ventures can provide the vision and comprehensive approach,
These
which the
political process fails to provide.
Observation 2:
The seeming return (shift back) to local responsibility and control
in addressing societal needs
For a span of about six decades - from the progressive era at the turn
of the century to the late 1960s, and, particularly, beginning with the
2
�New Deal in the 1930s - the federal government took an ever-increasing
role
in meeting
1970s,
that
the
trend
Increasingly,
needs
has
of
first
the American people.
slowed,
and
now
Since
seems
the
to
early
reverse.
states and localities are being asked to deliver services
and provide benefits to people at the community level.
This situation poses problems for nearly all states and localities and
puts pressure on the tax system, especially, to raise revenues to cover
increased state and local expenditures.
A desirable consequence is that more problems are being identified and
dealt with closer to home.
And, as we all know, the answers usually lie
not in dollars alone, but in the increased commitment and involvement of
people who care.
are obvious:
more
Again,
opportunities
for private-sector initiatives
There is a desperate need to become more efficient and
effective
in
using
limited
resources
and
in
mobilizing
local
leadership.
Observation 3:
The dichotomy between the nature of the problems that concern us
and the solutions we devise
The
problems
of
concern
to
society
tend
to
be
multidisciplinary, overarching, penetrating, and permeating.
complex,
Each of us
can make our own list - inflation, K-12 and higher education, home care
for
the
peace.
elderly,
To
groundwater,
the contrary,
environmental
quality,
job
generation,
the solutions most often devised to address
such issues tend to be narrow,
discipline- or profession-oriented,
and
biased, simplistic, and inadequate to the task.
A major contribution of community colleges in addressing societal needs
can be
to
encourage and demonstrate programs
involve collaboration, and provide continuity.
3
that
are
comprehensive,
�Observation 4:
The persistent reluctance to face facts and to deal with reality
Resistance
to
change
is
a human characteristic,
comfortable
with
evidence is
overwhelming,
reluctant
to
things
respond.
most
both individuals and their institutions
are
a
truism that
concern, we know better than we do."
be of special interest to you:
even
feel
the
is
Sometimes,
of us
when
It
familiar.
and most
"in most cases
of human
Think only of the areas that may
substance abuse,
K-12 education, health
care, the environment, or any other.
For example,
if we think of child development in the early years,
we
know that age five is too late for societal concern and intervention.
Yet,
most communities lack comprehensive early-childhood and preschool
programs
of high quality.
The evidence is clear that the elementary
years are most important and that school drop-outs can be predicted by
grades six or seven.
Still, we persist in accrediting our high schools
and starving the elementary schools -whenever resources are limited.
Furthermore, many teachers will tell you that it takes the first three
months of the new school year to catch up to where students were before
summer vacation .
learning
during
Yet,
the
we persist
summer
in having
months
a
a
three-month
school-year model
break
in
established
nearly 200 years ago by an agrarian society.
Another example of reluctance to react to reality and make change is in
the area of corrections.
Pennsylvania
recently
When discussing penal reform,
commented,
person in the state pen,
"It costs
$24, 000
a
the governor of
year
to keep
but only $8,000 a year at Penn State."
a
Yet,
creative efforts to deal with this overwhelming problem are virtually
nonexistent.
4
�We as a society, through our institutions and organizations, must put to
better use that which is already known.
Here community colleges can ·be
a key catalyst.
Observation 5:
The persistence of "turfism" in addressing societal needs
Usually
programs
continuity.
human
Battle
service
Creek,
for
are
badly
example,
fragmented
have
lack
identified
voluntary, nonprofit groups directed to the needs of youth.
Pluralism
competition can also be healthy;
we
and
67
is good;
In
of
but infighting,
adversarial
stances, and combative behavior are not!
The clearest example in our hometown was
hospitals,
virtually across the street from each other,
from less than 50 percent occupancy.
host
of
in health care.
other
Department
health
of
Public
care
In addition,
organizations
Health,
American
Cross,
each suffering
we have the usual
Visiting
Red
We had two
Nurse
Hospice.
Service,
Meals
on
Wheels, voluntary ambulances services, and many more.
Unhappily.
while each is composed of intelligent,
able.
dedicated,
and
well-intentioned individuals, each also tends to address issues from the
perspective of their organizational or institutional objectives.
is
concerned
activities
with
of
its
others
own
niche,
and
too
with
often
not
insufficient
sensitive
attention
comprehensive health needs of the people of the community.
Each
to
to
the
the
In Battle
Creek, we finally succeeded in getting the two hospitals to merge.
Now
we are in the process of getting the other players to join the team.
Again,
colleges
there
to
is· a
be
an
challenge
influence
and
in
a
great
bringing
comprehensive, collaborative, and continuous.
5
opportunity
about
for
services
community
that
are
�Growing out of these observations are four thoughts -- two concerns and
two challenges
about community colleges and their role in the decade
of community that I have briefly chosen to share.
Caution 1:
Don't succwnb to the temptation to become something
other than what society desperately needs you to be.
The
role
that
community
tremendously significant.
growing,
successful
colleges
But,
playing
in
communities
is
there is increasing temptation for any
institution
bigger or more structured.
is
to
change,
to
evolve
into
something
Many community colleges have started down
the path to become four-year institutions.
In my opinion,
this
is a
tragic mistake.
Look at the numbers in my home state of Michigan.
established
colleges
and
universities.
When
There are 15 state-
you
examine
budget it is clear that 15 is more than we can afford.
the
state
Each of these 15
institutions does little to vary from the same, rather rigid approach to
higher education -- teaching essentially in a highly structured pattern
of courses, for credit, in classrooms, on campus.
Michigan also has
29
with
needs
the
concerned
special
with
classroom to
community colleges,
teaching,
of
not
the
each unique,
communities
research,
the people -- whether on
and
they
are
campus,
each concerned
serve.
willing
in a
to
local
They
are
take
the
elementary
school, or in a nearby mechanic's shop -- at times when people are able
to participate.
We, as a community and as a society, need community colleges to remain
true to their original vision and mission.
Caution 2:
As
institutions
protocols,
divisions,
Fight the tendency to become institutionalized.
grow
procedures,
departments,
there
is
a
tendency
and to build walls
catalogs,
establish
patterns,
through the development
calendars,
6
to
contracts,
etc.
of
In
�institutions
that
have
undergone
this
evolution
something doesn't fit into a prescribed small box,
to
rigidity,
if
it simply cannot be
done.
John Gardner may have put it best in his book entitled,
The
Individual
societies
are
and
the
young,
Innovative
they
are
Society:
flexible,
"When
fluid,
not
Self-renewal:
organizations
and
yet paralyzed by
rigid specialization and a willingness to try anything once.
As the
organization or society ages, vitality diminishes, flexibility gives way
to rigidity,
creativity fades and there is a loss of capacity to meet
challenges from unexpected directions."
Community colleges have to avoid this type of institutionalization that
can
lead
to
a
lack
of
sensitivity
to
the
needs
of
the
community.
Community college leaders must work to keep their institutions flexible
entities in a changing community.
Challenge
1:
To
be
even more
responsive
to
the needs
of
the
community.
Community colleges are by tradition committed and experienced to be a
leader in addressing community concerns.
In this decade of community,
community colleges will be challenged to be even more proactive and more
of a catalyst in collaboration than they have in the past.
think of your individual community's agenda,
list of issues emerges.
are
endless
and
The possible roles
distinctive
to
each
When you
I am sure a rather lengthy
for the community college
community.
They
have
the
opportunity to transform local communities through their resources and
their ability to act as an agent of change.
Challenge 2:
To play an increasingly major role with nonprofit
organizations in your community.
When you look at life at the community level, much of its character, its
quality,
its
organizations.
caring
is
connected
Imagine your
with
nonprofit
community without
7
institutions
the nonprofit
and
sector.
�There would be no churches or religious organizations;
activities
would be
youth education.
severely
damaged,
as
social service
would efforts
in
adult
and
Without the nonprofit sector, the arts and health care
would be virtually nonexistent.
In this decade of community, where responsibility has been shifted but
resources,
for the most part, remain at the federal and state level, the
need for development, training, and collaboration among organizations in
the
nonprofit
sector
is
essential
for
their
survival.
Community
colleges can play an increasingly important role in providing preservice
and inservice training for nonprofits, their staff, and their boards.
I
am convinced that changes that will come in our society will be a result
of the work of volunteer citizen boards.
Those organizations that have
become institutionalized cannot be changed from within, only the work of
ci tizen boards
archi tects
and energizers
--
of
change will
alter
these organizations to meet the increasing needs of community.
While all nonprofits are well-intentioned in the community, many efforts
are fragmented and lack a common focus.
In Battle Creek,
for example,
there are 87 agencies working with youth.
Seldom does one know what the
other
of providing a
is
doing
and
there
is
never talk
continuum of
service and educational opportunities for young people in our community.
Community colleges have the ability,
organizations
and
to
assist
them
through their resources,
in
developing
these
to focus
comprehensive
approaches to issues and concerns of the community.
In conclusion,
it is clear that most of the significant new directions
imperative to our societal future will not be charted by government.
In
fact, many elected officials are almost desperate for better answers or
proposed solutions to perplexing issues.
their
unique
ability
to
react
to
local
Community colleges, because of
and
regional
needs
must
be
responsive to changing societal circumstances and opportunity.
Community
creative,
level.
colleges
have
a
rich
collaborative approaches
tradition
of
innovation,
to human concerns
nurturing
at the community
These traits will be needed more than ever before in the 1990s
8
�the decade of community.
A decade that can be,
should be,
and will
be the de cade of the community co llege, if you choose to make it so.
9
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby Papers
Subject
The topic of the resource
Charities
Family foundations--Michigan
Philanthropy and society
Description
An account of the resource
The Russell Mawby papers document the life and work of Michigan-born Russell Mawby from 1928 to the present. Mawby was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for twenty-five years and is recognized for his work in the area of philanthropy in the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
The digital collection includes a selection of field notes, speeches, itineraries, and other materials.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell G.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby Papers (JCPA-01). Johnson Center for Philanthropy Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1938-2012
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Source
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby papers, JCPA-01</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01_1992-09_RMawby_SPE
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby speech, The Role of the Community College in the Decade of Community
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell
Description
An account of the resource
Speech given September, 1992 for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation on the importance of community colleges in the community.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Grand Valley State University Special Collections & University Archives
Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philanthropy and society
Family foundations--Michigan
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Charities
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Education
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1992-09-01
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6b3fa39b7b5155c2c68d0db3e7290e98.pdf
dc058589b1bb0abffb4a9ef95513ea91
PDF Text
Text
THE UNIVERSE OF .QU\J"""TIO
YOUTH
W'by, Director
Russ 11 G.
Divi ion of
icultur
W.
elio Fo
tion
To be vith you for thi
ppreci ted privil
ch
in vi th
to m t one
provo
tive .
ch-
l!01ioTC"oIrer, I
my
n
urpos
ten ion du
b
Foun
t ion ,
tt
0
rtunities
of
ut
0
vorld
vi
. K 110
ro
r
Foun t ion .
spen ibi 11tics in th
ch
uc ton .
n to tho
Th
of Ext naion
rci 1 a
lpeo l ,
icult ur,
nt .
ce pted the i nvi
t ion
0
part of t his pro
Lloyd Rutle
l e th
e
ture of
t dift' rent than your , our interest
i
v
to
t , I vill not dv 11 on
, youth deve10
lly
t
of t h Foun tion i
in
S B
to
curr nt reapensibiliti
my
tion r e very
ti
C
is
th th W.
in s
co
or , I
t
n dir ctions
i n co
I 100
n
you, individual ly
fo
dto
ny
col l ct i vely, on pro
1 illtere t .
Th1
rni
l i f'yi
confid nCe
I int n
ut th s
t you v i l l
your own
di eussion
s ion .
dir etly
to
e rt in
nd
t
nts:
t io
vith
inter
i
tin and
uld ob
of the Kelio
Th
rticular Conference
pon ibil iti
Un!versity nd ErtelLGion,
lly velcome the OpPOrtunity
es in 4-H .
of thi
r
unexpect
i
spected nd coveted co ll
i l l y, vile t ete
cription of
d
r ' Conf erenc
Of course , I pereo
my
the t h
1 4-H Le
tio
p eta of
s.
r
obs rvations into proper
turc pro essio
Fir t - to r efl ct
ttedly over-
C
experi
11
ttee
ve
on our discus ion of
t
I do t hi vith
r spect i v on
thro
th
specific
nay nd Tue
,
•
�n
our C
."
hip
t
lad
v1
rn
vi
1n
nte
t
ebni
1n
1
1n 0
prof'
t,
e1 11 t10nj t
pro
tha
be
I
I
t
ut
prof
10 11
nt.
tth
t
rs
1
1b111ty 1 11
lc
1n eo
et10
et 0
ur
eo
p of yo
•
On
to l1ve
of our
ly
I
I
to h lp tb
t poin
I
Dr.
�- 3 •
it
to
i ell
ti
ion
of co
~ ''l!.T'ltl i
•
T1lll'
I
On
robl
I
tio
it i
of 1n:t'1d 11ty to
on
ch
ly 1n.teJ:"de:per.1.d1 e n t
.............. i
r
8hi
e,
f1
1r
e2i!lPhi:~s1
of au
thc)U,g;h't-proVOlUIllg d1 CU8 10n 0
r ity
on
10n
t
rv
D1r e
4-
e.
fort
th
in
.1AIlCl~lirs.n·t
UA.I~
Un1
r i ty
BVI~'te!'m
rei y
of
to rvi
r
4. yout
in
t
of
1
.
n1
rahi
to
then
, v
10
e1 1
c
P.
of
view' in
I v1ll
ev 10
d
thr
re ultant d1
r1 te,
c
for
to
to
hip,
lat10
11
th1
Un1
1 erea.s1r.tg
rr
in
10
e
rvat10ns
ndorD~~ut
nt ...n t• ., ... of
c
1
rof
ob
trer::leJ1CIOUS
OOil~rer.
eon:f'id
byt
chaJ.le
bett r job.
10
not
c
1n both
Be
pr
implie1t
11
sen~tion
th
discus 10
to f1
n um:msvclred
t,
tion of
JAJlO.~liI"3l.Ut
Un1v r 1 ty
�- 4n
ien i
ndu t
1on
;
i
t
1b1
l1
t
i
1
I
4
-
o
f
t
-
co
Coo
I
npus
you d
10
n
t
ion
t
o
t
t Un1 r
s
i
t
I
1 A~'''''''''' ''
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
i ion
U
n
! ri
t
y
'
C1'">n1n.."
,
.
,
:
1
u
h
.
"
'
f
"
.
l
"
I
f
'
r
t
I
o
r
tt
h
i
n
�- 5t
10
ot
iv1
1.
�-6th1
i
n
1
con
er
no
r
r 1e
t
conv
ie
t10
,
rp
r
c
)
c
edw
:
a
l
1
.
VO
l
l
ILt p
e
c
)p
J
.
e
.
I
n0
"e
x
l
;
,e
n
to
f
I
n
c
j
o
r1n:
'l.u: ~no. l
i
n
l
y
'
,(
b
)
1
,U
lo
'
/A
l
;
:u
t: (
)
,
ch
CO
:
:
i
:
lCU
l
l1
ty
I
I. O
\U
'
"
w
i
th
Th u
l
t1m
a
t
e
b
1
ObO
l
f
rV
'
l'
l
.
t1
.
t
t .:J.
.
.
.
'OU
"U
'
w
i
l
l
t
o
o
lthe
:mne
~ 1~'~~
o
r1
o
r
1
o
n
,
" t
n
o
�1tnss1J%U
,
.
)
•
1
)
,
I
d eV .U~l 1C!nt 0
rt. m~JAlut1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.1
.
"
'
\
.04
,
Jvo
.
;
r
:
!
1
'0
.
11
:
.h
e
·
r
,
YO
l
l
th
,
I
t
)1
2
.
o
t
l
l
e
r1
1
m
t
'A
"
"
'
1
1
n
,
?
]
,
yd
1
f
'
:
t1
�3
.
le~n1I .::
o r1
t
.
t
.1ontomnr-nu
l
l
! t
.h
,
v
i 1
,
r1
5
.
,
.
.
.
.
1
J
\
.
.u
.
.
.
.
c
h
m
o
t
i
,
r
a
t
o
.
1
o,u
t
t
o
d:
y
yo
v
i
C
.
,
"
e1 Y
'
,
co.
,Inc
.
,
��- 10 ri,
t
llty
to
0
1
oJ
-''-'''>
I .
viti
nI
to
with th
lly
Thi
r
inc1
�- 11 -
ily
not
•
•
in .;;:;x'WIlDie
'... .... ''''............ 0
'W'
COltlulm1.n.:.Ltion I
Bu
�o
1
,
"
,I
' ' " "~""
"
'.....
.
,U
f
.
.1"
'
.
.
.
.
_
,.
.
.
.
. ~~ ..."
11
1
1
.
t
no
t
1
11
"o
r
t 1
1
�t
ocon
t
t 1
1
,0 t t
a
t
r
t
.
n
r
:L
l
y
.......,
"
"
...r
1
pm
:
-po.
c
e
'
l
" C
UJ 1~1
1 no -,
th
l
re
:J
.
,
to
IW
l
t
l
,d
i
n
pe4
;
)1
)JLe,
1
t
t
o
o
c
lt
yden
r
an
c
lB
1
b
l,
�-1 -
5
.
1.n t1"" ""·~r
t
r
o
l
,
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby Papers
Subject
The topic of the resource
Charities
Family foundations--Michigan
Philanthropy and society
Description
An account of the resource
The Russell Mawby papers document the life and work of Michigan-born Russell Mawby from 1928 to the present. Mawby was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for twenty-five years and is recognized for his work in the area of philanthropy in the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
The digital collection includes a selection of field notes, speeches, itineraries, and other materials.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell G.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby Papers (JCPA-01). Johnson Center for Philanthropy Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1938-2012
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Source
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby papers, JCPA-01</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01_1977-09-09_RMawby_SPE
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby speech, Youth in the Universe of Education
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell
Description
An account of the resource
Speech given September 9, 1977 for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation at the National 4-H Leader's Conference.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Grand Valley State University Special Collections & University Archives
Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philanthropy and society
Family foundations--Michigan
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Charities
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Education
Youth
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1977-09-09
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/208a5173ff48e3604a5e91642573048d.pdf
83feced43505b89105857e25c29a5a78
PDF Text
Text
PAGE 1
HTHE GREATEST OPPORTUNITYH
DELIVERED AT HTOWN AND GOWN H BREAKFAST
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT LINCOLN
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1988
DR. RUSSELL G. MAWBY
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
W. K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION
THE TOPIC ON WHICH I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO COMMENT THIS
MORNING IS HYOUTH IN CRISIS. H I WILL TALK ABOUT SOME OF
THE PROBLEMS THAT OUR YOUNG PEOPLE FACE AND DESCRIBE SOME
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS.
THESE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED,
HOWEVER, TO BE THE HOFFICIAL AGENDA H OF THE W. K. KELLOGG
FOUNDATION.
THE KELLOGG FOUNDATION HAS FROM ITS VERY
FOUNDING HELD THE PHILOSOPHY THAT THE FOUNDATION DOES NOT
HAVE THE ANSWERS TO THE PROBLEMS OF PEOPLE.
RATHER, WE
ARE ISSUE-ORIENTED, IDENTIFYING CERTAIN PROBLEMS WHICH
SEEM TO BE OF SIGNIFICANCE TO SOCIETY.
BUT WE DO NOT
ATTEMPT TO BE PRESCRIPTIVE, THAT IS WE DO NOT TELL PEOPLE
HOW TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS.
WE ARE ANXIOUS TO BE
INVOLVED WITH THOSE WHO SHARE OUR CONCERN AND ARE TRYING
TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
WE WILL WORK WITH THEM TO
SHARPEN AND REFINE THEIR IDEAS, BUT ULTIMATELY, SINCE THEY
ARE THE ONES WHO MUST DEAL WITH THEIR CONCERNS, THE
ANSWERS MUST COME FROM THEM, NOT FROM US.
RECENTLY IN MY READING, I CAME ACROSS A VERY STRONG
COMPLAINT ABOUT YOUTH.
THE YOUNG:
THE WRITER HAD THIS TO SAY ABOUT
�PAGE 2
"OUR YOUTH NOW LOVE LUXURY -- THEY HAVE BAD MANNERS
AND CONTEMPT FOR AUTHORITY. . . . CHILDREN ARE NOW
TYRANTS -- NOT THE SERVANTS OF THEIR HOUSEHOLDS. THEY
CONTRADICT THEIR PARENTS . . . AND TYRANNIZE THEIR
TEACHERS . . . "
THIS STATEMENT SOUNDS VERY MUCH LIKE THE STUMP SPEECH OF
SOMEONE RUNNING FOR OFFICE, OR THE CRY OF A DISTRESSED
PARENT, OR PERHAPS THE COMPLAINT OF THE FRUSTRATED TEACHER
OR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR.
BUT THE QUOTATION IS ACTUALLY
ATTRIBUTED TO SOCRATES WHO LIVED IN THE 5TH CENTURY, B.C.
WE CAN SEE FROM THIS STATEMENT THAT THE CONCERN FOR YOUTH
IS NOT A PHENOMENON NEW TO SOCIETY; IN FACT, VIRTUALLY
EVERY GENERATION SINCE HISTORY HAS BEEN RECORDED HAS
EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THEIR YOUNG
PEOPLE.
BUT IT MIGHT SEEM TO US THAT WE HAVE MORE LEGITIMATE
GROUNDS TO COMPLAIN THAN HAS ANY OTHER PREVIOUS
GENERATION.
ONE NEED ONLY POINT TO THE CONSTANT
BOMBARDMENT OF ARTICLES IN THE MEDIA AND STORIES ON THE
TELEVISION NEWS ABOUT SKY-ROCKETING DROPOUT RATES,
DISCOURAGINGLY HIGH PERCENTAGES OF UNEMPLOYED YOUTH, A
VIRTUAL EPIDEMIC OF TEEN PREGNANCY, THE FRIGHTENING AND
GROWING INSTANCES OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE, THE UNPRECEDENTED
LEVELS OF TEEN SUICIDE, THE INCREASING EVIDENCE OF
�PAGE 3
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR, THE APPALLINGLY HIGH RATES OF
ILLITERACY, AND THE GENERAL LACK OF MOTIVATION AMONG OUR
YOUNG PEOPLE.
IT IS ESPECIALLY EASY TO BECOME DEPRESSED
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE IMPACT A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY HAS HAD
UPON THE YOUNG OF MINORITIES AND THE POOR.
BUT THESE GRIM STATISTICS DO NOT TELL THE ENTIRE STORY.
THESE SAME STATISTICS PAINT QUITE A DIFFERENT PICTURE:
SIXTY PERCENT OF ALL TEENAGE GIRLS DO NOT BECOME
PREGNANT. SEVENTY PERCENT OF ALL TEENAGERS DO NOT
REGULARLY GET DRUNK. SIXTY PERCENT HAVE NOT REGULARLY
USED MARIJUANA FOR AT LEAST A YEAR, AND 73 PERCENT OF
EIGHTH GRADERS EVENTUALLY GRADUATE (AND, ACCORDING TO
FIGURES RECENTLY RELEASED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO DROP OUT HAS
BEEN SLOWLY FALLING OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS).
LEAVING ASIDE STATISTICS FOR THE MOMENT, WE MIGHT CONSIDER
OUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
I WOULD WAGER THAT EVERYONE
OF US KNOWS PERSONALLY OR COMES INTO CONTACT DAILY WITH
DOZENS OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE ALERT, INTELLIGENT,
PATRIOTIC, HONEST, HARD-WORKING, AND AMBITIOUS.
ARE WE TO MAKE OF THE STATE OF TODAY'S YOUTH?
SO WHAT
MANY, TOO
MANY, OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE ARE HAVING SERIOUS PROBLEMS.
THERE IS GROUNDS FOR CONCERN AND A NEED FOR ACTION.
WE MUST NEVER FORGET THE POSITIVE ASPECTS AS WELL.
BUT
WE
MUST NOT OVER-REACT BUT RATHER CALIBRATE OUR PROPOSED
SOLUTIONS TO MEET THE TRUE DIMENSIONS OF THE PROBLEM.
�PAGE 4
FROM MY VANTAGE POINT WORKING FOR A FOUNDATION THAT HAS
BEEN HISTORICALLY INTERESTED IN YOUTH, I AM ABLE TO SEE
LITERALLY SCORES OF SUCH PROPOSED SOLUTIONS EVERY YEAR.
THE GREAT TENDENCY IN AN ERA OF SPECIALIZATION AND SPECIAL
INTEREST, IS TO ADOPT A CRISIS MENTALITY TO DEAL WITH THE
BITS AND PIECES OF PROBLEMS:
WE HAVE ALL HEARD OF THE
CRISIS OF THE ENVIRONMENT, THE CRISIS OF HEALTH CARE, THE
CRISIS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
GRANTED, THESE ARE ALL
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES ON SOCIETY'S AGENDA.
BUT THEY
ARE ALSO COMPLEX PROBLEMS WHICH HAVE EVOLVED OVER A LONG
PERIOD.
IT IS UNLIKELY THAT A SPECIFIC APPROACH OR A
QUICK SOLUTION WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO SOLVE THEM.
AS
GRANTMAKERS, WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH MANY PROPOSALS THAT
ARE VERY NARROW AND SPECIFIC.
ON THE SUBJECT OF YOUTH,
THESE PROPOSALS FREQUENTLY ZERO IN ON SUCH NARROW AREAS AS
SUBSTANCE ABUSE, TEEN PREGNANCY, OR THE DROPOUT PROBLEM.
THEY TEND NOT TO DEAL WITH THE LARGER AND MORE PERVASIVE
ISSUES IN A YOUNG PERSON'S LIFE SUCH AS THE HOME AND
FAMILY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT,
EDUCATIONAL AND LEISURE-TIME OPPORTUNITIES.
I AM SIMPLY SUGGESTING THAT IT IS TIME THAT WE AS A NATION
LOOK MORE COMPREHENSIVELY AT YOUTH IN CONTEMPORARY
AMERICAN SOCIETY.
FINE.
DO WE LIKE WHAT WE SEE?
IF SO, THAT IS
IF NOT, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
SURELY,
�PAGE 5
EVERYONE WILL AGREE THAT THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST
AT RISK MUST BE HELPED.
LESS OBVIOUSLY, WE NEED TO FIND
WAYS TO HELP THOSE WHO ARE NOT TECHNICALLY AT RISK STAY
OUT OF TROUBLE.
WE NEED TO CHALLENGE THEM; WE NEED TO
FIND WAYS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR LIVES ARE TOO FULL OF
INTERESTING AND EXCITING THINGS TO DO TO FIND TIME TO GET
INTO TROUBLE.
BEFORE.
THINGS ARE DIFFERENCT TODAY THAN EVER
MANY OF THE CHANGES IN SOCIETY HAVE GREAT IMPACT
ON THE PROCESS OF GROWING UP.
LET ME ILLUSTRATE WITH JUST
FOUR ISSUES . . .
ONE NEED ONLY LOOK AT THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE
AMERICAN FAMILY TO UNDERSTAND WHY SO MANY YOUTH TODAY ARE
IN 1955, 60 PERCENT OF ALL AMERICAN
HAVING PROBLEMS.
FAMILIES CONSISTED OF A WORKING fATHER, A MOTHER WHO WAS A
HOMEMAKER, AND TWO SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN.
By 1985, LESS
THAN TWO GENERATIONS LATER, THAT NUMBER HAD SHRUNK TO
SEVEN PERCENT.
THE DEMOGRAPHERS TELL US THAT OUT OF EVERY
100 CHILDREN BORN TODAY, 12 ARE BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK AND 40
ARE BORN TO PARENTS WHO WILL BE DIVORCED BY THE TIME THE
CHILD REACHES 18.
ONE-HALF OF THESE CHILDREN WILL LIVE IN
A HOME WITH THE MOTHER WORKING OUT OF THE HOUSEHOLD.
WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, THESE ENORMOUS DEMOGRAPHIC
SHIFTS MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF CHILDREN.
�PAGE 6
YET IN OUR SOCIETY, WE FACE THESE MASSIVE CHANGES WITH
INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY UNCHANGED.
WE NEED TO
BE MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE NEW NEEDS THAT THIS NEW SOCIETY
HAS BROUGHT WITH IT.
LET ME BE MORE SPECIFIC AND TALK FOR
A MOMENT ABOUT THE AREAS WHERE CHANGES MUST COME:
1.
EARLIEST CHILDHOOD -- RESEARCH HAS REPEATEDLY
DEMONSTRATED THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT TWO YEARS IN
A PERSON'S LIFE ARE THE FIRST TWO. WE MUST WORK
TO ENSURE THAT THE BEST QUALITY OF CARE AND
NURTURING IS ACHIEVED DURING THOSE TWO CRITICAL
YEARS.
2.
PARENTING -- ALL PARENTS ARE AMATEURS. WE NEED TO
FIND NEW WAYS TO PREPARE PARENTS FOR THIS MOST
IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIR LIVES. THE
PROBLEM BECOMES EVEN MORE ACUTE WHEN WE CONSIDER
THAT WE HAVE THE PHENOMENON OF CHILDREN HAVING
CHILDREN. I WAS RECENTLY AT A MEETING WHICH
CONSISTED OF GRANDMOTHERS -- ALL OF WHOM WERE
BETWEEN 25 AND 30 YEARS OF AGE. THIS IS A
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT NEED WHICH MUST BE
ADDRESSED SOON.
3.
PRESCHOOL EDUCATIOI~ -- AGAIN, ALL THE RESEARCH IN
THIS AREA SHOWS THAT SYSTEMATIC SCHOOLING SHOULD
START EARLIER THAN IT NOW DOES. YET PUBLIC
SCHOOLS CONTINUE TO BE INTERESTED IN CHILDREN ONLY
IF THEY TURN FIVE BY DECEMBER 1.
4. LATCHKEY CHILDREN -- INCREASINGLY, WITH TWO
PARENTS WORKING, CHILDREN LEAVE FROM AND COME HOME
TO AN EMPTY HOUSE. SURELY THERE MUST BE A BETTER
WAY OF SCHEDULING THE SCHOOL DAY TO ACCOMMODATE
CHANGING SOCIETAL NEEDS.
5.
THE ROLE OF THE HOME AND FAMILY IN FORMAL
EDUCATION -- IN THE PAST, WE HAVE BEEN CONTENT TO
SEND OUR CHILDREN OFF TO SCHOOL TO BE EDUCATED AND
NOT TO TAKE A VERY ACTIVE ROLE IN THAT PROCESS.
BUT, IT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY CLEAR THAT FOR
EDUCATION TO TRULY HAVE IMPACT, WHAT GOES ON IN
THE CLASSROOM MUST BE REINFORCED AT HOME AND VICE
VERSA. WE CLEARLY NEED TO HAVE MUCH GREATER
TEAMWORK IN THIS AREA THAN WE DO AT PRESENT.
�PAGE 7
JUST AS THERE HAVE BEEN ENORMOUS CHANGES IN THE FAMILY,
THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN TREMENDOUS CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY
WHICH HAVE AFFECTED CHILDREN.
WHEN I WAS A YOUNGSTER
GROWING UP ON A FRUIT FARM IN SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN, I WAS
GIVEN CHORES TO DO AT AN EARLY AGE -- NOT JUST BUSY WORK
OR MAKE WORK.
THESE CHORES WERE IMPORTANT TO THE
LIVELIHOOD OF MY FAMILY.
AT THAT TIME, CHILDREN WERE AN
ECONOMIC ASSET FROM A VERY YOUNG AGE.
TODAY, IN THE
AFFLUENT WORLD IN WHICH WE LIVE, CHILDREN ARE AN ECONOMIC
LIABILITY.
THEY MAY HAVE CHORES, BUT REALLY DO NOT
CONTRIBUTE THAT MUCH TO THE LIVELIHOOD OF THE FAMILY.
TODAY'S YOUNG PEOPLE ARE CAUGHT IN A DOUBLE BIND.
THE AGE
OF PUBERTY CONTINUES TO DROP EVEN AS THE TIME OF
PREPARATION NEEDED TO TAKE ONE'S PLACE IN SOCIETY
CONTINUES TO LENGTHEN.
THE RESULT IS A PROLONGED PERIOD
OF DEPENDENCY, AN EXTENDED ADOLESCENCE, IF YOU WILL.
DURING THIS TIME, IT IS EASY TO BECOME BORED AND
DISILLUSIONED.
WE NEED TO BE FAR MORE CREATIVE THAN WE
HAVE BEEN IN FINDING USEFUL AND MEANINGFUL WORK FOR THESE
YOUNG PEOPLE.
WE ALSO SHOULD EXPLOIT TO A MUCH GREATER
DEGREE THAN WE HAVE VOLUNTEER ROLES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO TRULY MEANINGFUL AND IMPORTANT WORK,
NOT FOR PAY, BUT FOR THE GOOD OF PEOPLE.
CHILDREN NEED TO
BE PRODUCTIVE . . . THEY NEED TO CONTRIBUTE.
THEY DO NOT
WISH TO ALWAYS BE THE BENEFICIARY ANYMORE THAN DO
RESPONSIBLE ADULTS.
�PAGE 8
I HAVE COMMENTED ON SOME OF THE SWEEPING CHANGES IN THE
FAMILY AND IN SOCIETY.
NOw LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CHANGES
-- OR LACK THEREOF -- IN THE SCHOOLS.
WE HAVE IN OUR
NATION'S SCHOOLS AN ESSENTIALLY AGRARIAN MODEL THAT WAS
PARTICULARLY USEFUL IN THE 19TH CENTURY, HAS BECOME
INSTITUTIONALIZED IN THE 20TH, AND WILL PROBABLY ENDURE
INTO THE 21ST.
THE SCHOOL DAY WAS INITIALLY SET FROM 9:00
TO 4:00, WHICH MADE SENSE BECAUSE YOU HAD TO DO YOUR
CHORES BEFORE YOU WENT TO SCHOOL, AND YOU HAD TO GET HOME
IN TIME TO DO THEM AGAIN IN THE AFTERNOON.
THE SCHOOL
YEAR WAS SET TO RUN FROM LABOR DAY TO MEMORIAL DAY WHICH,
OF COURSE, ALLOWED FOR THE CHILDREN TO BE HOME DURING THE
BUSY SUMMER MONTHS.
WHILE FEW LIVE ON FARMS TODAY,
STILL HAVE PRECISELY THAT CALENDAR.
WE
THIS CALENDAR AND
THIS TIME FRAME ASSUMED THAT THE PARENTS WERE AT HOME AS
INDEED MOST OF THEM WERE AND, AS INDEED, THE MAJORITY ARE
NOT TODAY.
THIS ENTIRE MODEL WAS EVOLVED FOR THE NEEDS OF
THE ONE-ROOM SCHOOL HOUSE.
IF WE WERE TO DEVELOP THE
CALENDARS AND SCHEDULES APPROPRIATE FOR TODAY, WE WOULD
DEVELOP A QUITE DIFFERENT PATTERN.
WE WOULD SURELY MAKE
THE SCHOOL DAY LONGER TO ELIMINATE THE LATCH-KEY PROBLEM
AND WORK OUT AN ARRANGEMENT WHEREBY SCHOOL WOULD BE
PLANNED DIFFERENTLY THROUGH THE YEAR.
THIS IS
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT SINCE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN AGAIN AND
AGAIN THAT WHEN CHILDREN BEGIN SCHOOL AFTER A THREE-MONTH
VACATION IT TYPICALLY TAKES THEM TWO TO THREE MONTHS TO
CATCH UP TO WHERE THEY HAD BEEN.
�PAGE 9
THE SCHOOL AS AN INSTITUTION NEEDS TO BECOME MUCH MORE
RESPONSIVE IN VERY FUNDAMENTAL WAYS TO THE CHANGES IN THE
WIDER SOCIETY.
SPECIFICALLY:
WE SHOULD CONSIDER A YEAR-ROUND SCHOOL YEAR. WE NEED
UNIVERSAL PUBLIC PRESCHOOL EDUCATION BEGINNING AT
LEAST AT AGE FOUR AND PREFERABLY AT AGE THREE. WE
NEED PROVISION FOR DAY-CARE AND LATCH-KEY CHILDREN.
AND WE SHOULD LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE PRIORITIES FOR
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES. AS AN ASIDE, I USED TO SERVE
ON A SCHOOL BOARD, AND I ALWAYS ASKED THE
ADMINISTRATORS WHY THEY FORCED US TO MAKE THE WRONG
CHOICES. WHEN TIMES WERE TOUGH, WE WERE COMPELLED TO
CUT RESOURCES FROM THE ELEMENTARY BUDGET TO PUT THEM
INTO THE HIGH SCHOOL BUDGET SO THAT THE HIGH SCHOOL
COULD RETAIN ITS ACCREDITATION. AND YET RESEARCH
SHOWS CONVINCINGLY THAT THE EARLY YEARS ARE CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT, MORE SO THAN THE LATER YEARS. WHY NOT
ACCREDIT THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS -- AND LET HIGH SCHOOL
GET THE RESIDUAL?
SCHOOLS CANNOT DO EVERYTHING.
TO ALL PEOPLE.
THEY CANNOT BE ALL THINGS
BUT SOCIETY'S NEEDS HAVE CHANGED SO
DRASTICALLY THAT THEY MUST BECOME MORE RESPONSIVE.
IT IS INSTRUCTIVE TO CONSIDER THE WAY THAT OTHER SOCIAL
INSTITUTIONS HAVE CHANGED TO MEET THE DIFFERENT NEEDS OF
THE POPULATION.
I CAN REMEMBER A TIME WHEN BANKS WERE
OPEN FROM 10:00 UNTIL 2:00.
NOW, I CAN GO TO MY BANK
THROUGH AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINES AND COMPLETE
TRANSACTIONS 24 HOURS A DAY, 365 DAYS A YEAR.
NOW SURELY,
IF BANKS CAN BECOME THAT RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE
PUBLIC, SO CAN THE NATION'S SCHOOLS.
�PAGE 10
THE FOURTH AREA OF CHANGE THAT HAS SUCH IMPACT UPON
AMERICAN YOUTH, IS THE FRAGMENTATION OF THE INFLUENCE AND
SERVICES THAT OUR SYSTEMS AND PROGRAMS HAVE DEVELOPED.
THERE IS SIMPLY A MULTIPLICITY OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND
ADMINISTRATIONS OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD, AND MANY OF
THEM ARE AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER AND CERTAINLY ARE
INCONSISTENT AMONG THEMSELVES.
EXAMPLE.
LET 'S TAKE A CONCRETE
SUPPOSE THAT YOU ARE THE PREGNANT TEENAGE
DAUGHTER OF AN ADC MOTHER, YOU ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY IN
SCHOOL, AND GET PICKED UP FOR SHOP LIFTING.
THINK OF THE
NUMBERS OF ORGANIZATIONS WITH WHICH YOU WILL HAVE TO DEAL
-- WITH THE SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM; WITH THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SYSTEM; WITH OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, AS DELIVERED THROUGH
THE COURTS; WITH THE SCHOOLS; WITH THE STATE EMPLOYMENT
OFFICES.
IF YOU HAVE EVER DEALT WITH THE MEDICAID SYSTEM,
YOU KNOW HOW DIFFICULT IT IS EVEN FOR WELL-EDUCATED PEOPLE
WITH FEW CHALLENGES TO DEAL WITH BUREAUCRACY.
IMAGINE THE
BEWILDERMENT THIS YOUNG PERSON, LABORING UNDER MULTIPLE
DIFFICULTIES, MUST FEEL.
AT THE KELLOGG FOUNDATION WE ARE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE SOME
EXPERIMENTAL EFFORTS TO FURTHER THE BEST INTERESTS OF ALL
OF OUR YOUNGSTERS.
WE ARE PERSUADED THAT MORE EFFORT
SHOULD BE MADE TO DO THE FOLLOWING:
�PAGE 11
1.
COMMUNITY-BASED EFFORTS -- THE PROBLEMS OF PEOPLE
ARE TOO IMPORTANT TO LEAVE THEM TO THE
PROFESSIONALS. CITIZENS MUST BE INVOLVED IN EVERY
PHASE -- DISCUSSION, PLANNING, EXECUTION,
EVALUATION OF EVERY PROJECT THAT HAS TO DO WITH
THEIR OWN WELL BEING.
2.
COMPREHENSIVE -- ALL OF THE INFLUENCES DIRECTLY
AFFECTING THE CHILD MUST BE CONSIDERED -- HOME,
FAMILY; NEIGHBORHOOD; SCHOOL; CHURCH; AGENCIES AND
AREAS OF GOVERNMENT; THE COURT; VOLUNTARY SERVICES
AND PROGRAMS.
3.
COLLABORATIVE -- THE SCHOOLS MUST WORK WITH
VOLUNTEERS. YOUTH PROGRAMS MUST WORK WITH THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE PROBLEMS WITH WHICH WE
GRAPPLE ARE TOO COMPLEX FOR ANY ONE PERSON OR ANY
ONE ORGANIZATION TO SOLVE THEM ALONE. TEAMWORK IS
ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.
4.
CONTINUITY -- THE PROBLEMS THAT WE FACE HAVE
EVOLVED OVER MANY YEARS. IT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE
THAT A QUICK FIX WILL SOLVE THEM. WE NEED TO
COMMIT OURSELVES AND OUR RESOURCES TO STAY AS LONG
AS IT TAKES TO FINISH THE JOB. AND THAT MAY WELL
BE A GENERATION, OR EVEN MORE.
WHAT GOAL SHOULD WE HAVE?
SIMPLY THIS:
TO MAKE OUR
COMMUNITY THE BEST PLACE IN THE "WORLD IN WHICH TO BE BORN
AND GROW UP.
I AM HERE TODAY TO TALK WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA SYSTEM TO SEE IF THERE ARE WAYS IN
WHICH THE MAGNIFICENT KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES THAT THIS
UNIVERSITY HAS CAN BE MOBILIZED MORE EFFECTIVELY TO DEAL
WITH THE PROBLEMS FACED BY YOUTH AND BY SOCIETY.
THIS, IN
MY ESTIMATION, IS THE GREATEST OPPORTUNITY THAT WE AS
PROFESSIONALS HAVE:
FULLEST POTENTIAL.
TO HELP OUR YOUNG PEOPLE REACH THEIR
�PAGE 12
THE YEARS AHEAD SHOULD BE EXCITING FOR OUR YOUNG.
THEY
SHOULD BE CHALLENGING AND FUN, NOT THREATENING AND
STRESSFUL.
THEY SHOULD BE REWARDING AND ENRICHING, NOT
INTIMIDATING AND BORING.
OUR YOUNG PEOPLE SHOULD BE
EXCITED BY LIFE; MANY OF THEM ALREADY ARE, BUT ALL SHOULD
BE.
DEMOGRAPHICALLY, WE NEED EVERY ONE OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE TO
BE MOTIVATED, CREATIVE, RESPONSIBLE, AND PRODUCTIVE.
THE CHARGE IS TO RESPOND TO THE CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES OF
TODAY, TO ADOPT NEW AND EXCITING PROCEDURES, TO CHANGE OUR
POLICIES AND OUR INSTITUTIONS TO A NEW DAY AND A NEW WAY.
GIVEN THE LESSONS OF HISTORY, DO WE HAVE GROUNDS FOR
OPTIMISM?
WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL TO REALIZE THAT, DESPITE
UNPARALLELED TEMPTATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES, THE MAJORITY OF
OUR YOUTH DO NOT FAIL, AND MOST OF THOSE WHO HAVE GONE
ASTRAY ARE NOT BEYOND REDEEMING.
AMERICAN HISTORY IS
REPLETE WITH CRISES THAT HAVE BEEN MET BY THE YOUNG, AND
WITH FEWER RESOURCES AND LESS KNOWLEDGE THAN WE NOW HAVE
AT OUR DISPOSAL.
OUR CREDO MIGHT PROPERLY COME FROM RALPH
WALDO EMERSON, WHO WROTE HIS POEM, "VOLUNTARIES" DURING
THE CIVIL WAR:
so
so
NIGH IS GRANDEUR TO OUR DUST
NEAR IS GOD TO MAN,
THAT WHEN DUTY WHISPERS LOW, "THOU MUST"
THE YOUTH REPLIES "I CAN."
WPC0961N
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby Papers
Subject
The topic of the resource
Charities
Family foundations--Michigan
Philanthropy and society
Description
An account of the resource
The Russell Mawby papers document the life and work of Michigan-born Russell Mawby from 1928 to the present. Mawby was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for twenty-five years and is recognized for his work in the area of philanthropy in the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
The digital collection includes a selection of field notes, speeches, itineraries, and other materials.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell G.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby Papers (JCPA-01). Johnson Center for Philanthropy Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1938-2012
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Source
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby papers, JCPA-01</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01_1988-09-07_RMawby_SPE
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby speech, The Greatest Opportunity
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell
Description
An account of the resource
Speech given September 7, 1988 for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation at the University of Nebraska during the Town and Gown breakfast.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Grand Valley State University Special Collections & University Archives
Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philanthropy and society
Family foundations--Michigan
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Charities
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Youth
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1988-09-07
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/97507b46a0ac405a11aaadce680a4e8d.pdf
3b94b4baff8cdf8c1dcbfc4b329688ab
PDF Text
Text
RGM's Remarks (Welcome/Introduction, Panel, and Closing)
for September 28, 1989, Michigan Educators,~~Qnfeye ce,
"Education in Philanthropy and Volunteerism" ' ./
at Kellogg Center, MSU
111N
•
STATEWIDE EDUCATORS' CONFERENCE
•
~ \.
~-&- .~
THANK YOU JOHN, AND WELCOME TO ALL OF YOU. liT IS APPROPRIATE THAT WE
SHOULD BE MEETING TODAY IN THE NATION'S FIRST UNIVERSITY BUILDING
CONSTRUCTED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING EDUCATION, FOR
THAT IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE WILL CONSIDER TODAY AS WE PLACE THE
SPOTLIGHT ON PHILANTHROPY, VOLUNTEERISM, AND NONPROFIT INITIATI ~ I
WANT TO THANK THE IMPROVING PHILANTHROPY COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OF
MICHIGAN FOUNDATIONS FOR THEIR HARD WORK IN PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING
THIS CONFERENCE.
THE REPORT THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED:
"PHILANTHROPY AND VOLUNTEERISM:
STATE AND NATIONAL TRENDS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR MICHIGAN" DEFINES THE
SCOPE OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR AND ITS IMPORTANCE IN ALL OUR LIVES.
I
WON'T COMMENT FURTHER ON THE REPORT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REINFORCE ITS
STRESS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SECTOR BY SHARING WITH YOU A COUPLE OF
STATISTICS UNCOVERED BY PETER DRUCKER, THE NOTED MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANT, DURING HIS STUDY OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
FIRST, ALL
--.-.
CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM HAD A BUDGET OF $5.9 BILLION IN 1988.
THIS
IS LARGER THAN THE BUDGET OF GENERAL MILLS, AND NEARLY TWICE THAT OF
APPLE COMPUTER. ;r~ TIME PERMITTED, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER
EXCELLENT EXAMPLE S IN THI S SEC TOR THAT DESERVE MENTION ... NOR IS THERE
/
~
TIME TO FU LLY DI SCUSS THE SEC TOR'S IMPACT UPON THE CHARAC TER AND THE '
/
.
QUALITY jOF LIFE AT THE COMMUNITY LEV~ I TH 2.-~.~!0~ ..l".l.~~ _~~
~
/;
HAT
THE SECTOR IS LARGER AND MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN MOST REALIZE. / IT WAS
I
}.
I
=':. \
v- ' ' ,..s>-~
~-<.L, .~ _..1: _
J tf.-t. ~. ~~.~.
j_~~
'1-
~ _~t.. '
,,,;,9. 0
~~
t..\ \',-",",. b'. . .. ~!\.
. ~
~
'¥" ~'(....
.
.AA
•
:
.iI. fi'. ""'<A.A;;'"
...... _.... \~- _.~~
I ...
I
0...- ......\, .
�,
.
~ .\
~ .~
.
~
c rr~~
2
/
/~
, ' I
-~-\
W
ITH TH
IS CONV
ICT
ION THAT THE CMF BOARD
,)N1986
, REATED THE
IMPROV
ING PH
ILANTHROPY COMM
ITTEE
. OUR
~ HAR E
/
WAS TO EXAM
INE THE
~o .
CURRENT STATUS OF PH
ILANTHROPY IN THE/STATEOF M
ICH
IGAN
,v
IDENT
IFY
/
AREAS IN WH
ICH WE COULD DO ETTER ~ AN
TO RECOMMEND STEPS FOR
IMPROVEMENT
. WE QU
ICKLY FOCUSED/ONTHE SUB
JECT OF EDUCAT
ION IN
PH
ILANTHROPY AND VOLU
t
\
ITEER
ISM
.j
;
;ANUMBER OF PEOPLE HAD OP
IN
IONS ABOUT
THE STATUS OF EDUCAT
ION IN THESE AREAS IN M
ICH
IGAN -BUT NO ONE HAD
ANY HARD DATA
.
THEREFORE
, THE COMM
ITTEE CONDUCTED THREE SURVEYS IN
ORDER TO SECURE THE INFORMAT
ION THAT WAS LACK
ING
.
-
- -_
.
-"
.
THE F
IRST SURVEY WAS SENT TO EVERY-T~( j.l
UN
IVERS
ITY IN M
ICH
IGAN
.
~-
~
E
r
t
-
C;~ --~-~ fl2.~
;~'E s R
D
ISCOVERED THAT THER ~
'
J__ • -
.-------_.-'
f·.
COLLEGE AND
ER~
NO FORMAL
~
~
~
.
DEGREE PROGRAMS IN PH
ILANTHROPY AND VOLUNTEERISM IN THE STATE
, BUT
THAT SEVERAL INST
ITUT
IONSOFFERED COURSES OR EXPER
IENT
IAL EDUCAT
ION IN
THESE AREAS
.
SEVERAL OF YOU IND
ICATED TO US THAT YOU HAVE FACULTY AND
STAFF THAT WERE INTERESTED IN THESE TOP
ICS
, AND IN MANY CASES YOUR
STAFF HAVE ORGAN
IZED VOLUNTEER ACT
IV
IT
IES OUTS
IDE OF THE SCHOOL
'S
FORMAL CURR
ICULUM
.
THE SECOND SURVEY WENT TO THE CMF MEMBERSH
IP
, WH
ICH THEN STOOD AT 2
20
(WE NOW HAVE
2S
]
~
MEMBERS
)
.
ITSRESULTS CONF
IRMED OUR BEL
IEF THAT
THERE WAS W
IDESPREAD INTEREST IN PH
ILANTHROPY AND VOLUNTEER
ISM AMONG
M
ICH
IGAN
'S FOUNDAT
IONS AND CORPORATE G
IV
ING PROGRAMS
. A SUBSTANT
IAL
NUMBER WERE ALREADY MAK
ING GRANTS IN THESE AREAS,AND ASO
L
IDMA
JOR
ITY
IND
ICATED INTEREST IN LEARN
ING MORE ON THESE SUB
JECTS
.
�~
~
I'- , ~~
A
I
'
p .
.
.
/
"'-
~ . (""~
. - ,Y
/
j
/
v
THE TH
IRD SURVEY TARGE1ED A SELECTED GROUP OF NONPROF
ITS ACROSS THE
I
STATE
. THEY TOLD US THAT EDUCAT
ION IN PH
ILANTHROPY AND VOLUNTEER
ISM
WAS A DEF
IN
ITE NEED/ANDTHEY WERE W
ILL
ING TO CONTR
IBUTE SOME OF THE
COSTS FOR THE
IR EMPLOYEES
. FURTHER
, THE
IR NEEDS RANGED OVER A W
IDE
VAR
IETY OF TOP
ICS
, FROM BOARDSMANSH
IP TO PERSONNEL TO VOLUNTEER
MANAGEMENT TO STRATEG
IC PLANN
ING
.
G
IVEN THE FACT THAT THE PROV
IDERS NEED THE EDUCAT
ION
, AND THE COLLEGES
AND UN
IVERS
IT
IES ARE INDEED CAPABLE OF PROV
ID
ING IT
, OUR MOST
EFFECT
IVE ROLE AS FUNDERS APPEARS TO BE THAT OF FAC
IL
ITATORS
. IN THAT
SP
IR
IT WE HAVE ORGAN
IZED TH
IS CONFERENCE
. WE HAVE NO PRECONCE
IVED
AGENDA
,
~
\j ~"PLAN
~
OF ACT
" ~---.
ON
.I
'
-
.A-~ ~ l
•
- ~ \f-" ' ..""
WE HAVE BROUGHT TOGETHER SOME OF THE
LEAD
ING NAT
IONAL EXPERTS ON PH
ILANTHROPY
, VOLUNTEER
ISM
, AND NONPROF
IT
IN
IT
IAT
IVETO LEAD OUR D
ISCUSS
IONS
. WHETHER TH
IS LEADS TO ANYTH
ING
ELSE ISENT
IRELY UP TO
v
;__ u
y.~~ .
_
~
~l. oc..-~""'~
~ .
.~~_
_
.
4
.
OUR KEYNOTE SPEAKER IS AD
IST
INGU
ISHED PROFESS
IONAL WHO HAS SPENT H
IS
\ ,,~
ENT
IRE L
IFE WORK
ING IN
, A® F
IGHT
ING FOR
, THE NONPROF
IT SECTOR
. HE
BEGAN H
IS CAREER AS ACOMMUN
ITY ORGAN
IZER FOR ASCHOOL AND
REHAB
IL
ITAT
ION CENTER FOR HAND
ICAPPED CH
ILDREN
. FROM 1
954 TO 1966
, HE
WORKED FOR THE AMER
ICAN HEART ASSOC
IAT
ION
, THEN SPENT THE NEXT 1
2
�4
YEARS AS THE NAT
IONAL D
IRECTOR OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ASSOC
IAT
ION
.
BR
IAN THEN SPENT TWO YEARS AS THE CEO OF TWO ORGAN
IZAT
IONS
: THE
NAT
IONAL COUNC
IL ON PH
ILANTHROPY AND THE COAL
IT
ION OF NAT
IONAL
IN 1
980 HE OVERSAW AMERGER OF THE TWO AS
VOLUNTARY ORGAN
IZAT
IONS
.
INDEPENDENT SECTOR
, AND HAS G
IVEN ADECADE OF SERV
ICE AS
.r~
FOUND
ING
~
PRES
IDENT
.
UNDER BR
IAN
'S
HAS BECOME THE COUNTRY
'S LEAD
ING ADVOCATE
LEA ER HIP ~
FOR THE NAT
IONAL TRAD
IT
IONS OF G
IV
ING AND VOLUNTEER
ING
. ,1
5
)
ISMADE UP
OF 650 FOUNDAT
IONS
, CORPORAT
IONS
, AND NAT
IONAL VOLUNTARY ORGAN
IZAT
IONS
THAT WORK TOGETHER TO GENERATE NEW RESEARCH ON THE SECTOR
, ENCOURAGE
THE IMPROVEMENT OF NONPROF
IT LEADERSH
IP AND MANAGEMENT
, CREATE
MUTUALLY SUPPORT
IVE RELAT
IONSH
IPS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND VOLUNTARY
ORGAN
IZAT
IONS
, AND EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT THE SECTOR
.
BR
IAN ISTHE AUTHOR OF SEVERAL BOOKS
, INCLUD
INGAMER
ICA
'S VOLUNTARY
~
SP
IR
IT
, PH
ILANTHROPY IN ACT
ION
,
~
VOLUNTEERS IN ACT
ION
. HE ISALSO
A VOLUNTEER H
IMSELF
, SERV
ING ON NUMEROUS BOARDS AND COMM
ISS
IONS
.
/
LAD
IES AND GENTLEMEN
, IG
IVE YOU BR
IAN O
'CONNELL
.
/
J
JO
/RG
/
~ \ l~
r
~ V
~ .
~ N..
1
'0.
L2.....~_..-.
~
~
.
:~~
I
I
_ _
, W"weoo-
,..,..~
r •
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,I
r
'
_.
.
.
.
.
~ '
"
f
1
~
\
.
. .
I
,
,
4
.
f
"
'
..f1.,A .
S
t
\
.
~l
~
. •
~~~'
~
-
I
~cn- -
.
'
.
_
~
r
.
. -"_
.
.
~-
,
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
�.:
.~-'S/
I
I
~
/"6'
~-
~;
~
c
'
~
/
/
J
,
I
'
.,
I
/
/
J
l
~
I
Q
f
I
f
(
r
~
.
,
�SUB
JECT
: BR
IEF INTRODUCT
IONS FOR SEPTEMBER 28 PANEL
ISTS
DELWYN DYER ISPROFESSOR AND D
IRECTOR
, CENTER FOR VOLUNTEER
DEVELOPMENT
, EXTENS
ION D
IV
IS
ION
, V
IRG
IN
IA POLYTECHN
IC INST
ITUTEAND
STATE UN
IVERS
ITY
, IN BLACKSBURG
, V
IRG
IN
IA
.
tA- ~e- ~
EL ~EARNE
A PH
.D
.
IN
SOC
IOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY FROM M
ICH
IGAN STATE UN
IVERS
ITY
, AND WAS
FORMERLY A PROGRAM LEADER
, 4
-H PROGRAMS
, HERE AT MSU ..DEL ISALSO
THE PAST PRES
IDENT OF THE ASSOC
IAT
ION OF VOLUNTARY ACT
ION SCHOLARS
.
V
IRG
IN
IA HODGK
INSON ISV
ICE PRES
IDENT
, RESEARCH
, INDEPENDENT SECTOR
,
~
. AND EXECUT
IVE D
IRECTOR OF THE NAT
IONAL CENTER FOR CHAR
ITABLE
~ STAT
IST
ICS
. SHE EARNED APH
.D
. IN H
IGHER EDUCAT
ION FROM SOUTHERN
ILL
INO
ISUN
IVERS
ITY
. SHE HAS AUTHORED MORE THAN 2
0BOOKS AND
ART
ICLES ON PH
ILANTHROPY
, VOLUNTEER
ISM
, AND THE NONPROF
IT SECTOR
,
INCLUD
ING G
IV
ING AND VOLUNTEER
ING IN THE UN
ITED STATES
: A NAT
IONAL
SURVEY AND D
IMENS
IONS OF THE INDEPENDENTSECTOR
: ASTAT
IST
ICAL
~
V- ~
PROF
ILE
. HER LEADERSH
IP IN THE STUDY OF NONPROF
ITS HAS CAUSED MER
~
~
~ E
4.
.-J
AS THE "NONPROF
IT P
IED P
IPER
.
"
KATHLEEN MCCARTHY ISPROFESSOR AND D
IRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR THE
STUDY OF PH
ILANTHROPY AT THE C
ITY UN
IVERS
ITY OF NEW YORK
.
SHE
EARNED APH
.D
. IN H
ISTORY FROM THE UN
IVERS
ITY OF CH
ICAGO
. SHE IS
THE AUTHOR OF NUMEROUS BOOKS AND ART
ICLES ON THE SUB
JECT OF NAT
IONAL
AND INTERNAT
IONAL PH
ILANTHROPY
. A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE
ROCKEFELLER FOUNDAT
ION
, SHE ISTHE FOUNDER OF THE INTERNAT
IONAL
FELLOWS PROGRAM
, WH
ICH BR
INGS YOUNG LEADERS FROM FORE
IGN NAT
IONS TO
AMER
ICA TO LEARN ABOUT AMER
ICAN PH
ILANTHROPY
.
~ ~\; ~ .
.
.
.
. ~~~ t~~-.. ~~
~
~ .e ...Q.... ' I-~
~ ~ Yt-<..
.
.
.
:
,
.
.
(
(
.
...,J};.
.
.
.PLu . ..~....-~. ~ t ~ ~
e
.
.
.
f
4
¥+
£
~~--- ..Qt"'~ t
t
-~cr- " " ~~ Q
-J
).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.~--......
~.~~ ~ 2~ .
~_ .
.
~ ~ ..o... ..
l
$
'
.
�~~.~. E2.~-. .. ~
4
~;~
- - A -~" ~
.
.
.-
~~ ~
DUANE BEAUCHAMP ISTHE D
IRECTOR OF H
ILLSDALE COLLEGE
'S GREAT
OPPORTUN
IT
IES FOR ASS
ISTANCE AND LEADERSH
IP (GOAL
) PRO
JECT
. TH
IS IS
A STUDENT VOLUNTEER
ISM AND LEADERSH
IP PROGRAM FUNDED BY THE
W
. K
. KELLOGG FOUNDAT
ION
.
~N E
AMASTERS IN D
IV
IN
ITY FROM
NASHOTAH HOUSE SEM
INARY IN W
ISCONS
IN
.
~
BEAUC
I
IA
t
i
lP
~
SERVED
THE EP
ISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE U
.S
.A
. IN ADM
IN
ISTRAT
IVE CAPAC
IT
IES
. HE
THEN SERVED AS THE RES
IDENT CONSULTANT FOR THE COMMUN
ITY SERV
ICE
BUREAU OF DALLAS
, TEXAS
, SPEC
IAL
IZ
ING IN FUND
-RA
IS
ING FOR PROGRAMS
FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY D
ISABLED
.
~ILL s ~
J
JO
/RG
I
I
IN
r~
'~ ~
~-AH Et AM
,t9
38
.
r5Sl:JMEB
-I+
I
-5
t
tR
"R'E
N
T
C
.
'
.
.
e
:a
.
.
.
"
.
.
�2
GEORGE ROCHE HAS BEEN PRES
IDENT OF H
ILLSDALE COLLEGE S
INCE 1
9
7
1
.
MA~ APRINCIPLE OF REFUSING TO
ORM~HU MAINTAINING COMPLETE
/
UNDER
H
IS LEADERSH
IP
,H
ILLSDALE HAS
ACCEPT GOVERNMENf"MONEY IN ANY
,
INDEPENDENCE FROM GOVERNMENTA)
/CONTROL
. DR
. ROCHE EARNED A PH
.D
. IN
H
ISTORY FROM THE UNIVER I ~
COLORADO
.
HE ISTHE AUTHOR OF TEN
BOOKS
, RANG
ING FROM EDUeAT
ION"
INAMER
ICA TO A NOVEL
, COM
ING HOME_.
/
HE IS
ALSO THE FOUNDER OF TWO FORUMS FOR D
IALOGUE ON THE SUB
JECTS OF
IND
IV
IDUAL LI
/
ER ~ ,
/
L
IM
ITED GOVERNMENT
, AND FREE ENTERPR
ISE
, THE
CENTER FOR CONSTRUCT
IVE ALTERNAT
IVES
, AND THE SHAVANO INST
ITUTE FOR
NAT
IONAL LEADERSH
IP
.
~
IRECTOR OF THE COMMUN
ITY SERV
HENRY
RUB
IN ISTHE D
ICE MANAGEMENT
CERT
IF
ICATE PROGRAM AT ROOSEVELT UN
IVERS
ITY
.
HE EARNED A PH
.D
. IN
~ EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION FROM NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY.
DR
. RUB
IN
ISTHE AUTHOR OF NUMEROUS BOOKS AND ART
ICLES ON NONPROF
IT
ADM
IN
ISTRAT
ION AND ETH
ICS
. HE CO
-CHA
IRS THE CLAR
ION CONFERENCE FOR
THE D
ISC
IPL
INE OF NONPROF
IT ADM
IN
ISTRAT
ION
.
J
JO
/RG
�:J-
~-l
o~ o
.~
_
i
I
t
...Q-~
_
.L
~
»'
. - . _~ ,<
:
.
�tv
.J (;)
.c:
QUESTIONS FOR PANEL
The first question is the "so what" question. Why is it
important to study volunteerism and philanthropy?
How do such studies fit into the traditional mission of the
university -- teaching, research and public service?
Does it make sense to teach philanthropy and volunteerism as a
discrete course, or should its concepts be broadly integrated
across the curriculum?
How can we interest the faculty in these subjects, and get
them involved in teaching these areas?
Is it possible to gain the faculty's commitment without
changing the university's reward system?
What are the best examples of programs for the study of
philanthropy and volunteerism?
Should we attempt to build a standardized curriculum, or
should we "let a thousand flowers bloom?"
Is there a logical departmental home for the study of
philanthropy and volunteerism?
9.
.-
Should training in philanthropy and volunteerism be vocational?
To what extent should education in philanthropy and
volunteerism employ experiential techniques?
Is "required volunteerism" a contradiction in terms?
What is the biggest impediment in the way of developing
programs?
What are the l;adin g professional organizati9ns in this field?
Where are the gaps in the knowledge base?
What are the opportunities for publication in these fields?
Have you encountered any internal institutional resistance?
(~
\V
G
Is there real demand for such a program among the students?
If so, is it strongest among undergraduates, graduate§1/
students, or continuing education students?
What are the future opportunities in these fields?
JJO!rgl086N:45
�CLOS
ING REMARKS STATEW
IDE EDUCATORS
' CONFERENCE
THE "EDUCAT
ION IN PH
ILANTHROPY AND VOLUNTEER
ISM
" CONFERENCE ISNOW
DRAW
ING TO A CLOSE
, AND ITH
INK ITHAS BEEN A VERY PRODUCT
IVE DAY
. WE
OWE AGREAT DEBT OF THANKS TO BR
IAN O
'CONNELL
, WHO PROV
IDED ACLEAR
OVERV
IEW OF THE IMPORTANCE AND THE STATE OF THE SECTOR
, AND ABLY
LAUNCHED US IN THE R
IGHT D
IRECT
ION
. OUR F
IVE PANEL
ISTS
, DELWYN DYER
,
V
IRG
IN
IA HODGK
INSON
, KATHLEEN MCCARTHY
,
'
"1
)"
'
-. -
E-eR~HE,
AND HENRY RUB
IN
,
GENEROUSLY SHARED THE
IR STORE OF EXPER
IENCE REGARD
ING THEORY AND
PRACT
ICE IN THE F
IELD
. MOREOVER
, THE
IR PART
IC
IPAT
ION IN THE
D
ISCUSS
IONS TH
IS AFTERNOON LED TO MANY PRODUCT
IVE INTERCHANGES AND A
H
IGH LEVEL OF D
IALOGUE
. AND THANKS TO YOU FOR TAK
ING THE T
IME TO
ATTEND
, AND PUTT
ING SO MUCH THOUGHT INTO YOUR QUEST
IONS AND
PART
IC
IPAT
ION
.
NOW
, THE NATURAL QUEST
ION IS"WHAT ABOUT NEXT STEPS
?
" AS ISA
ID AT
THE BEG
INN
ING OF THE CONFERENCE
, THE MEMBERSH
IP OF THE COUNC
IL OF
M
ICH
IGAN FOUNDAT
IONS HAS NO PRECONCE
IVED AGENDA OR A PLAN OF ACT
ION
.
WE DO NOT INTEND
T
OI
S
S
UEA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
. TH
IS DOES NOT MEAN
_
.
.
_
...~ .
.
_.~_. ---------,-- .
THAT WE..-HAVE SU_
D
E
N
Y_
_
LOSL
INTEREST IN PH
ILANTHROPY AND VOLUNTEER
ISM.
.D
,_
.
.
.
.L
ITDOES MEAN
, HOWEVER
, THAT THE BALL ISIN YOUR COURT
.
IFYOU TH
INK
THAT TH
IS SUB
JECT ISIMPORTANT
, THAT ITMER
ITS FURTHER REFLECT
ION AND
POSS
IBLY ACT
ION
, THEN WE ARE W
ILL
ING TO L
ISTEN TO YOUR IDEAS
.~
UPO ~ -l R R.EELE- -"" -I-e
YOU PLACE PH L THRO.
f
A
lN
D VOLUNTEERI~~ ON
O f~-r-T ~ -IHEN
WE
CERTAINL ..R ~~ON.
�2
AS FUNDERS, WE SEE OUR ROLE BEING THAT OF A FACILITATOR.
IF YOU HAVE
GOOD IDEAS ABOUT BETTER WAYS TO PROVIDE EDUCATION IN PHILANTHROPY AND
VOLUNTEERISM, THEN WE WANT TO HEAR THEM.
NATURALLY, YOU UNDERSTAND
THAT FUNDERS CANNOT GIVE A nBLANK CHECK,n BUT WE CAN GUARANTEE A FAIR
HEARING.
AND, IF OUR PRIORITIES MATCH, WE CAN HELP YOU TO ACHIEVE
YOUR GOALS FASTER -- AND PERHAPS BETTER
IN ANY EVENT, NEXT STEPS ARE UP TO YOU.
THAN YOU COULD ON YOUR OWN.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR MAKING
THE TIME TO JOIN US, AND ADD TO OUR DELIBERATIONS.
JOURNEY HOME.
JJO/RG
HAVE A SAFE
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby Papers
Subject
The topic of the resource
Charities
Family foundations--Michigan
Philanthropy and society
Description
An account of the resource
The Russell Mawby papers document the life and work of Michigan-born Russell Mawby from 1928 to the present. Mawby was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for twenty-five years and is recognized for his work in the area of philanthropy in the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
The digital collection includes a selection of field notes, speeches, itineraries, and other materials.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell G.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby Papers (JCPA-01). Johnson Center for Philanthropy Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1938-2012
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Source
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby papers, JCPA-01</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01_1989-09-28_RMawby_SPE
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby speech, Education in Philanthropy and Volunteerism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell
Description
An account of the resource
Speech given September 28, 1989 for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation at the Statewide Educator's Conference to discuss the importance of education in philanthropy and volunteerism.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Grand Valley State University Special Collections & University Archives
Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philanthropy and society
Family foundations--Michigan
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Charities
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Education
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1989-09-28
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/e423391a157305b62e00d26a974782bb.pdf
96b919da83ebd0aff2193d90f6b42fc9
PDF Text
Text
ac -1-
Dedication Ceremony
Wildlife Education Center
Binder Park Zoo
September 28, 1982
Russell G. Mawby, Chairman of the Board
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
I am delighted to be here as the Binder Park Zoo takes another
major step in its development for our community.
The Zoo has had a remarkable record of success in the past four
years -- often
~n
the face of adverse economic, general
and weather conditions.
operati~g,
The Zoo is an impressive example of
community self-initiative and achievement; whereby a group of
citizens recognized a community need and then organized to
plan, fund, and carry out zoo activities, and without reliance
on tax or governmental money.
Today volunteers from throughout the area serve as members of
the Zoo's Board of Directors; are helping to physically build
and maintain the Zoo; a n d are serving as docents -- or
volunte~~
�a
c2
-
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s-t
om
ak
e p
o
s
s
i
b
l
ea g
r
e
a
t
l
ye
x
p
a
n
d
e
d Zoo e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
hp
r
o
g
r
am
.
A
s w
e d
e
d
i
c
a
t
et
h
i
s
,t
h
eZ
o
o
'
sf
i
r
s
tp
e
rm
a
n
e
n
tb
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,i
t
i
s
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
tt
on
o
t
et
h
a
tn
e
a
r
l
y3
0
0a
r
e
af
am
i
l
i
e
sa
r
ea
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
st
o
,and p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
si
n
,Zoo a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
st
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
i
ra
n
n
u
a
lm
em
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
; t
os
a
yn
o
t
h
i
n
go
ft
h
et
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
so
f
o
t
h
e
ra
r
e
ac
i
t
i
z
e
n
swho r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
yv
i
s
i
tt
h
eZoo
.
I
th
a
sb
e
e
n
t
h
e
s
ei
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
,a
l
o
n
gw
i
t
hc
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
sf
romp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
no
u
rc
omm
u
n
i
t
y and s
u
c
hc
i
v
i
cl
e
a
d
e
r
sa
sB
e
u
l
a
hK
e
n
d
a
l
l
, Bob
M
i
l
l
e
r
, a
n
dt
h
eK
e
l
t
hS
c
h
r
o
d
e
rf
am
i
l
ywho h
a
v
em
ad
e t
h
i
sd
a
y
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
On
e o
ft
h
ep
r
im
a
r
ys
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
so
ft
h
eZoo
~
and r
e
a
s
o
n
sf
o
ri
t
s
b
r
o
a
d
b
a
s
e
d commun
i
ty s
u
p
p
o
r
t-h
a
sb
e
e
ni
t
sem
p
h
a
s
i
so
n
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
lp
r
o
g
r
am
sf
o
rc
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
. W
. K
. K
e
l
l
o
g
g
, t
h
ef
o
u
n
d
e
r
o
ft
h
eK
e
l
l
o
g
gF
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,w
a
s f
o
n
do
fs
a
y
i
n
gt
h
a
t"
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
e
r
st
h
eg
r
e
a
t
e
s
to
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
yf
o
rr
e
a
l
l
yim
p
r
o
v
i
n
go
n
e
�ac -3-
generation over another." Many of the Foundation's grantmaking
efforts over the years have reflected that commitment and
belief regarding the importance of education in our society.
That has been the Foundation's goal in providing financial
support for the Zoo.
That has also been the Foundation's goal
ln regard to a grant which I am pleased to announce this evening
namely, a new $60,000 grant by the Kellogg Foundation to help
the Binder Park Zoo construct a separate animal care facility
immediately to the west of this education center.
These Foundation
funds will augment the already considerable financial support
pledged by the General Foods Corporation for completion of the
animal care center.
The Center will feature special space and
equipment needed to develop and serve major exotic animal
exhibits -- which are key to the next phase of the Zoo's development.
Yet, ln a more direct way, the Wildlife Education Center we
dedicate this evening has been described as the true "heart" of
all Zoo operations because it houses cl assrooms and meeting
�ac -4-
space, offices, kitchen, and animal care area.
I take that to
mean the heart of the Zoo in an educational sense.
For the
Center makes possible a further broadening of Zoo educational
programs for area youth and citizens.
The challenge for the Binder Park Zoo will be to use this
Wildlife Education Center to enhance both outreach and in-zoo
programs.
More than 19,200 people were served by Zoo outreach
activities last year, as well as by the Zoomobile field days
and "Living Textbook" programs at schools throughout the community.
More than 15,000 additional youngsters participated in the
educational programs and festivals offered right here at the
Zoo.
I believe the key to Binder Park Zoo's promising future
will be its continued emphasis on quality educational programs,
and equally important, voluntary support and citizen involvement
within its 25-mile, 800,000 population service area .
�ac -5-
The Kellogg Foundation has been pleased to be a partner in
helping to launch the Binder Park Zoo.
We are proud of the
Zoo's growing reputation nationally for outstanding educational
programs.
We are equally proud, and confident, that the Zoo
will build upon that record of service and achievement in the
years ahead.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby Papers
Subject
The topic of the resource
Charities
Family foundations--Michigan
Philanthropy and society
Description
An account of the resource
The Russell Mawby papers document the life and work of Michigan-born Russell Mawby from 1928 to the present. Mawby was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for twenty-five years and is recognized for his work in the area of philanthropy in the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
The digital collection includes a selection of field notes, speeches, itineraries, and other materials.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell G.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby Papers (JCPA-01). Johnson Center for Philanthropy Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1938-2012
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Source
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby papers, JCPA-01</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01_1982-09-28_RMawby_SPE
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby speech at the Wildlife Education Center Dedication Ceremony
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell
Description
An account of the resource
Speech given September 28, 1982 for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation at the dedication ceremony for the Wildlife Education Center.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Grand Valley State University Special Collections & University Archives
Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philanthropy and society
Family foundations--Michigan
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Charities
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Education
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1982-09-28
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/a462023aab33772a74a46b4e99beedd5.pdf
d3d264fa4e11b624c1ddaeb5d8034505
PDF Text
Text
THE MI CHI GAN BI OTECHNOLOGY INSTI TUTE
Remarks by Dr. Russell G. Mawby
Cha i r man and Chief Executive Officer
W. K. Kell ogg Foundation
September 27, 1984/Lansing, MI
Governor Blanchard, Mr. We i 1, Dr. Zeikus, memb e r s of the MBI
Board of Direc t ors, media repres entatives, ladies and ge ntlemen
Michigan, in recent years, has been sgre '¥- c ha 11e nge d by a
series of difficult economic circumstances.
Now we are emerging from those troubled time s and we see all
around us the evidence of the human spirit's invincibility.
People
are addr essing the needs of our communities and our state with
determination, skill"
and
ne~~~:C~ e
sacrifice.
The enthusiasm and commitment of people
from Sault Ste.
Marie to Battle Creek, from Muske gon to Port Huron, fr om Copper
Harbor to Detroit
to restore MichIgan as one of the nation's
flagship states is, i n my
e s t ima t i o n.-m &£-e ~an
r emarkab l e ;
is
it
awe - insp iring. ~
I f. yo
e ~o
can't keep a good state down!
pa raphrase an old adage: You just
John Gardner's words appropriately
describ eA' such s p i r it when he w't"o t e :
"We are not at our best
perched at the summit; we are c l i mbers, at our best when the way is
steep."
~~~~~ ~~~ r~~~~ ~a&~ ~~la t
--.
v a l uab l e lesson learned
~
is one that gives suffic i ent wisdom to avoid other pitfalls.
Part
of the new Michigan we a r e seeing is a mor e economically diversi fied
�p
r
o
f
i
l
e
. on
e wh
i
ch c
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
e
son t
h
ev
e
r
yb
e
s
to
fi
t
sn
a
t
i
v
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
. And t
h
a
ti
st
h
efund
am
en
t
a
lpoi
n
to
f my r
em
a
rk
st
h
i
s
m
o
rn
ing
.
i
me
l
yexamp
l
ew
i
t
h
i
nt
h
i
sd
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
i
e
dp
r
o
f
i
l
ei
st
h
e
At
~~
b
i
o
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
yi
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
. I
nt
h
i
s
A
e
n
te
r
p
r
i
s
eM
ich
ig
an i
sr
i
c
hi
n
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
se
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
lt
os
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
ld
ev
e
lopm
en
t
. Th
e
s
er
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
~ a
~
v
i
b
r
a
n
t an
dd
i
v
ers
ef
a
rm
a
g
r
i
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
ss
e
c
t
o
r
,
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
ti
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
lp
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
nc
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
_a g
e
n
e
r
o
u
sw
a
t
e
rs
u
p
p
l
y
.
- m
o
re t
h
a
n1
7
.
5m
i
l
l
i
o
na
c
r
e
so
f comm
e
r
c
i
a
lf
o
r
e
s
t
l
a
n
d
.
-
_an abund
an
t sk
edwo
rk f
o
r
c
e
. and
-aw
e
l
ld
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
dt
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
ns
y
s
t
em
.
O
fe
q
u
a
l im
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
.w
eh
av
e an im
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
enumb
e
ro
fs
u
p
e
r
b
c
o
l
l
e
g
e
sand u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i
e
s
. in
l
in
. ~i
i an
S
t
a
t
eU
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y and
t
h
eU
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
yo
fM
i
ch
ig
an -twowo
r
ldc
l
a
s
si
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
.both
w
i
t
ho
u
t
st
a
n
d
i
n
gr
e
s
e
a
r
c
ht
a
l
e
n
t
. Ou
r c
o
l
l
e
g
e
sand u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i
e
sc
an
i
n
deed h
e
l
pt
oe
n
s
u
r
er
e
a
lp
r
o
g
r
e
s
si
ns
om
any im
p
o
r
t
a
n
tf
i
e
l
d
so
f
dev
e
l
o
p
m
en
t
. A
l
lo
ft
h
i
si
sM
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
'
s
. a
sw
e
l
la
sc
r
u
c
i
a
la
c
c
e
s
s
t
ob
i
o
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
ym
a
r
k
e
t
s and v
e
n
t
u
r
ec
a
p
i
t
a
l
.
Th
eM
i
ch
ig
an B
i
o
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
yI
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
t
h
eM
B
I. l
o
c
a
t
e
di
n
E
a
s
tL
an
s
ing --w
i
l
ll
i
n
ku
n
i
v
e
r
si
t
yr
e
s
e
a
r
c
hw
i
t
ha
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
so
f
b
i
o
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
yt
oexp
and ou
rf
o
r
e
s
tand a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
li
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s
.
c
r
e
a
t
ej
o
b
s
.and f
u
r
t
h
e
rimp
rov
et
h
es
t
a
t
e
'
se
conom
i
cs
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
Tho
s
ep
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
es
t
e
p
sw
i
l
l imp
rov
el
i
f
ef
o
rM
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
'
s p
e
o
p
l
e
.
2
�Th
e M
B
Ir
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
sa p
o
o
l
i
n
go
fr
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
, hum
an
, and
i
tr
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
so
p
p
o
r
t
uni
t
y
.
Fo
rt
h
e
s
er
e
a
s
o
n
s
, t ~~~~~
~-~ ~
&eee -~
t
h
eW
. K
. K
e
llogg
Found
at
i
o
nh
a
ss
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
dt
h
eI
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
eand i
t
sp
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
lf
o
rh
e
l
p
i
n
g
t
or
e
v
i
t
a
l
i
z
eou
rs
t
a
t
e
. I
n
i
t
i
a
le~
ea
gf l
@
I
ts s
u
p
p
o
r
tc
am
ei
n
Augu
s
t 1982
,i
nt
h
e fo
rm &
fa $150
,000 g
r
a
n
tt
ol
a
u
n
c
hcomp
r
eh
en
s
iv
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g and t
oem
p
l
o
ys
t
a
f
fn
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
yt
od
e
v
e
l
o
pt
h
eI
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
'
s
s
p
e
c
i
a
lr
a
n
g
eo
ft
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s-t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
swh
i
ch c
an l
e
a
dt
o
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
land p
r
o
f
i
t
a
b
l
ea
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
si
nt
h
efoodp
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,p
h
a
rm
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l
s
, andb
a
s
i
ca
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
lp
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
I
ti
sa
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
et
h
a
tt
h
eK
e
l
logg F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n cho
s
et
ob
e
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
di
nt
h
i
se
x
c
i
t
i
n
gv
e
n
t
u
r
e
. Th
en
am
eK
e
l
logg i
sp
r
o
u
d
l
y
l
i
n
k
e
dw
i
t
hM
i
ch
ig
an
.
C
r
e
a
t
e
di
n1930 by t
h
em
an who
s
en
am
ei
s
synonomou
sw
i
t
ht
h
er
e
a
d
y
t
o
e
a
tc
e
re
a
li
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,t
h
eW
. K
. K
e
l
logg
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
ni
sM
i
ch
ig
anb
o
r
nandM
i
ch
ig
anb
a
s
e
d
.
~ Th
es
o
l
i
d
,s
t
e
ady g
row
thwh
i
ch h
a
s mov
ed t
h
eF
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nf
rom
i
t
so
r
i
g
i
n
a
l $45 m
i
l
l
i
o
n endowm
en
tt
oi
t
sc
u
r
r
e
n
ta
s
s
e
t
so
f mo
r
e
t
h
a
n$1 b
i
l
l
i
o
ni
st
h
er
e
s
u
l
to
ft
h
ee
n
t
r
e
p
re
n
e
u
r
i
a
ls
u
c
c
e
s
so
f
p
r
i
v
a
t
eb
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,m
a
ny o
f th
emh
e
a
d
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
e
di
nM
i
ch
ig
an
.
I
nt
h
eF
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
'
s 54y
e
a
rh
i
s
t
o
r
y
,i
t
h
a
sm
ad
e g
r
a
n
t
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g $768 m
i
l
l
i
o
n t
oh
e
l
ps
o
l
v
es
o
c
i
e
t
a
lp
rob
l
em
si
nt
h
ea
r
e
a
s
o
fh
e
a
l
t
h
,a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
, and e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
;f
u
l
l
y$125 m
i
l
l
i
o
no
ft
h
a
t
amoun
th
a
ss
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
dp
r
o
g
ram
s and p
r
o
j
e
c
t
si
nM
i
ch
ig
an
.
I
nr
e
v
i
ew
i
n
gt
h
o
s
ef
i
g
u
r
e
sI amr
em
ind
edo
fwh
a
tW
. K
.
l
l
o
g
gw
r
o
t
e i
nh
i
sj
o
u
r
n
a
li
n1909
: "
I
fI ams
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
li
n
Ke
3
�g
e
tt
i
n
go
u
to
fd
e
b
t and b
e
com
ep
r
o
s
p
e
r
o
u
si
nmy b
u
s
i
n
e
s
sa
f
f
a
i
r
s
,I
e
x
p
e
c
tt
om
ak
e good u
s
eo
f anyw
e
a
l
t
ht
h
a
tm
aycom
e t
om
e
.
"
Som
e
sl
a
t
e
rh
e added
: "
I
th
a
s beenmu
ch e
a
s
i
e
rt
om
ak
e mon
ey t
h
a
n
year
t
oknowhow t
osp
end i
t
w
ise
ly
."
H
i
s
t
o
r
y vou
ch
e
st
h
a
tM
r
. K
e
l
logg w
a
s s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
lb
o
t
ha
t
making mon
eyand a
tm
ak
ing w
i
s
eu
s
eo
fi
t
. Th
es
t
ew
a
r
d
so
fh
i
s
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
'
sa
s
s
e
t
sh
av
eh
ad
, and c
o
n
ti
n
u
et
oh
a
v
e
, ac
o
n
s
t
a
n
tand
\
~
r
ew
a
r
d
i
n
gc
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
et
odo l
i
k
ew
i
s
e
.
-
----
Ov
e
r thep
a
st y
e
a
r
,M
B
I h
a
sm
ad
e e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
tp
r
o
g
r
e
s
si
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
i
n
gan o
r
g
a
n
i
z
at
i
o
nand d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g a fo
cu
sf
o
rr
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
,
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
,and e
d
u
c
a
t
i
ona
lp
r
o
g
ram
s
. I
th
a
sc
l
a
r
i
f
i
e
dr
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
b
e
tw
e
en i
t
s
e
l
fand edu
c
at
i
o
n
a
li
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
son on
eh
and
, and
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
yand u
s
e
r
s on t
h
eo
t
h
e
r. F
u
r
t
h
e
r
,i
t
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
dan
ope
ra
t
i
o
na
lp
o
l
i
c
yb
ased on a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
n
g60 p
e
r
c
e
n
to
fi
t
sr
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
or
e
s
e
a
r
c
hand d
e
v
e
lopm
en
t
, and 40
.pe
rcen
tt
os
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
i
n
gt
h
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
gand e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
lp
r
ogr
am
sw
i
t
h
i
nu
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i
e
s
. T
h
i
si
sa
s
o
l
i
dc
om
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
no
fe
f
f
o
r
t
st
h
a
tc
ana
c
c
r
u
el
a
s
t
i
n
gb
e
n
e
f
i
t
sf
o
r
o
u
rs
t
a
t
e
.
M
B
I's y
e
a
r
l
o
n
gp
r
o
g
r
e
s
si
sh
i
g
h
l
ya
s
s
u
r
i
n
g
. A
sa r
e
s
u
l
t
,
t
h
eK
e
l
logg Founda
tion
's Bo
a
rd r
e
a
f
f
i
rm
si
t
scomm
i
tm
en
tt
o
d
a
yt
ot
h
e
v
a
l
u
e and p
u
r
p
o
s
eo
ft
h
eB
i
o
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
yI
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
et
h
r
o
u
g
ha
f
o
u
r
y
e
ar
,$10 m
illion g
r
a
n
tt
oMB
l t
oc
a
r
r
yfo
rw
a
rdi
t
so
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
.
~~ l e
e o
fa
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
lK
e
l
logg Found
a
ti
o
nfund
sf
o
rf
u
r
t
he
r
s
t
a
g
e
so
fM
B
l's p
rog
r
am
sw
i
l
lb
ed
e
c
i
d
e
da
f
t
e
rt
h
ec
u
r
r
e
n
two
rk i
s
eva
lua
ted
,b
u
tw
ea
r
eh
i
g
h
l
yo
p
tim
i
s
t
i
c
.
4
�We believe that the fiscal support that the Foundation is
giving to the Michigan Biotechnology Institute is evidence of wise
stewardship of our financial resources.
We trust that it will help.
in its own way. Mi c h i ga n ' s leaders to be wise stewards of the
abundant natural. human. and instit itional resources with which this
state has been so generous lyeI+C:1 82li; c d ~
5
t-eJ.:Je-d.....-
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby Papers
Subject
The topic of the resource
Charities
Family foundations--Michigan
Philanthropy and society
Description
An account of the resource
The Russell Mawby papers document the life and work of Michigan-born Russell Mawby from 1928 to the present. Mawby was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for twenty-five years and is recognized for his work in the area of philanthropy in the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
The digital collection includes a selection of field notes, speeches, itineraries, and other materials.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell G.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby Papers (JCPA-01). Johnson Center for Philanthropy Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1938-2012
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Source
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby papers, JCPA-01</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01_1984-09-27_RMawby_SPE
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby speech, The Michigan Biotechnology Institute
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell
Description
An account of the resource
Speech given September 27, 1984 for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation on the Michigan Biotechnology Institute.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Grand Valley State University Special Collections & University Archives
Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philanthropy and society
Family foundations--Michigan
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Charities
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Education
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1984-09-27
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d5b2b91d9c6780841c319b02e043dc75.pdf
74aede330e540e063f634e75c6bbba04
PDF Text
Text
Concluding Remarks by
Russell G. Mawby, Chairman and CEO
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Family Community Leadership Workshop
September 26, 1986
Denver, Colorado
I am glad to be with you for this concluding session of the Family
Community Leadership Conference.
My only regret is that I have not been here
for the full time so that I could meet more of you, but I appreciate so much
your warm welcome and the chance to visit with many of you in this short
period of time.
I feel right at home with this kind of group because, as
indicated, I have a rural background.
deal in my life.
Extension and 4-H have meant a great
I was a 4-H club member and my mother was very active in the
Michigan Extension Homemakers.
I really credit the Extension home
demonstration agent, the county agricultural agent and the district 4-H agent,
along with my mother and dad, for encouraging me to become the first of my
family to go to college.
My wife, Ruth, was a county home demonstration
agent, and I was an Extension agent, specialist, administrator, and
volunteer.
So Extension has been very much a part of our lives for a long
period of time.
My career and my personal interests have been very much involved with a
lot of the issues and activities that are of concern to you.
It has been over
20 years since I left Michigan State University to join the W. K. Kellogg
Foundation.
As one of my colleagues said at that time, I "traded in my
academic robe for a foundation garment."
My heart, however, is still very
close to your concerns, and fortunately a lot of the philosophy and activities
of this Foundation are similar to those that you and I share.
I have often
�2
confessed to some of my friends in home economics that if I were to be
reincarnated in an Extension career, I would wish, at this point in the life
of society, to become a State Leader for Home Economics Extension.
I say that
simply because it seems to me that if we look at perplexing concerns of
American society, the emphases and purposes to which you are committed have
greater potential for addressing some of those needs constructively than any
of the other programs with which I am familiar.
I want to congratulate everyone who has been a part of bringing us
together on this occasion.
some years ago.
I first heard about the concept which led to FCL
It was in 1978 or 1979 that I had the pleasure of meeting
with Charline Warren and other officers of the National Extension Homemakers
Council at the National 4-H Center in Washington, D.C.
The FCL idea was just
beginning to take form and it materialized dramatically through the years of
initial impetus from the Extension Homemakers, and shepherded along by others
like Eleanor Whittemore who have been important in the process.
It is a partnership effort.
Many different folks have been involved,
and the Extension and volunteer partnership and collaboration are extremely
important.
Orville Young was one of the early Extension leaders on the
regional and the national level to give it real endorsement, encouragement,
and support.
That collaborative partnership is symbolized by these name
badges that simply tell you that I am Russ from Michigan.
because all of us serve a common purpose.
That is great
We have the same objectives in
mind, and each of us makes a particular contribution; so whether the label is
volunteer or professional doesn't make any difference as long as we recognize
that we do share a mission.
To the six states that have been the pioneers, the forerunners and the
experimenters, we express our special gratitude and admiration.
We are
�3
grateful to all of the people involved in so many ways in bringing about the
FCL success.
I salute all of you who have been a part of this process.
A special tribute goes to the planning committee.
seen them, and tolerated them this week.
You have met them,
In my brief military career at Camp
Chaffe in Arkansas, I whitewashed rocks and served in an artillery unit.
In
artillery terms, your co-chairs would be a "BB" team--Bassett and Barron.
practice, however, they have had the impact of a howitzer.
In
To Lois and Jim,
who co-chaired this activity, and the full committee, we are grateful for a
tremendous conference.
Speaking for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, we have been privileged
indeed to be helpful to you by providing a bit of assistance in this
experiment -- the development, testing, and evaluation which leads us to this
national dissemination conference.
The support by the Foundation for the
Family Community Leadership program is just a part of a long-term commitment
to people, families, communities, and leadership.
Sometimes there is
confusion about the relationship between the Kellogg Company and the W. K.
Kellogg Foundation.
The tie is simply one man -- W. K. Kellogg.
Mr. Kellogg,
back in 1906, quit his job at age 46 as the administrator of a hospital and
started the Kellogg Company.
He very early determined that whatever fortune
he accumulated he would somehow dedicate to human benefit.
In 1930, at the
age of 70, he established this Foundation, and there is the tie; only people
are important and that one man made that difference.
We started out as a very small Foundation working in just seven
counties in southcentral Michigan.
health, libraries, and families.
international in stature.
largest in the country.
We worked on problems of education, public
Now, of course, we have grown to be
The Foundation is now among the two or three
In our fiscal year just ended on August 31, we had
�4
assets of $3.1 billion, revenues of $81 million, and we are projecting for the
current year an increase of 18 percent to $96 million dollars in support of
about 600 different projects around the world.
As an old farm boy, those
figures alwa ys overwhelm me.
Historically, the Foundation has always been concerned with leadership
of all sorts to enable people in various settings and circumstances to
contribute constructively to societal progress.
So we have worked for years,
and still do, with school boards, hospital boards, the United Way, the Urban
League, and fellowship programs of various kinds.
One example you may be
familiar with is the Farmer's Study Program or the Agricultural Leadership
Program that started on a small basis in one, then two, then five states and
now serves in at least 23 different states around the country.
Our concern is with encouraging people to take a greater role in
shaping today and tomorrow.
It is very natural, then, that the Foundation was
excited by the concept of Family Community Leadership.
of these words is tremendous.
You recognize it -- just remind yourself of
their importance occ asionally as you move forward.
social unit in our society.
The importance of each
Family -- it is the basic
We are beginning to appreciate to a greater
extent some of the values embodied in strong families; values like discipline
and hard work and ambition and self-sacrifice and patience and caring and
love.
We are beginning to realize with all of the changes in traditional
family structures that those values are still tremendously important; as human
individuals we need close and caring and loving relationships.
While the
details of f amily structure may change (and they have been changing for
centuries), the basic notion is still valid.
We have found in our programs
that many people like to be students of the family, we find many who would
like to be critics of the family, but we find too few who are advocates of the
family.
I am delighted that you are advocates for families.
�5
Second is community.
That's where we live.
There has been a tendency
for the past half-century to transfer responsibilities for important concerns
from the individual and the family to someone else.
In similar fashion, we
have transferred responsibility from the local community to ever-higher levels
of government.
I think we are now appreciating the fact that a lot of those
efforts have been less successful than we would hope, and to some extent we
are beginning to see a transition back to local responsibility.
It will be
tough because we have become dependent upon grants from federal sources for
all sorts of things in our schools, in urban development and other areas.
Nonetheless, we are beginning to recognize that some of the wisest decisions
are made closest to the problem.
Communities, whether you define them as your local neighborhood or a
local unit of government, up to the State, are going to become increasingly
important in shaping the future.
This means that the individual citizen will
have increasing opportunities to make a difference at the community level on
significant concerns.
Family plus community plus leadership.
There are lots of definitions
of a leader, but I always think of a leader as someone who recognizes a need
and then does something about it.
a doer.
It is much easier to be a critic than to be
It is much easier to sit back and say, "Why doesn't the school board
do this thing or the other?"
"Why don't they do something about the quality
of the water in our local river?"
to criticize.
"Why don't they do something?"
It is easy
It is much more difficult to move forward in constructive
action, but that is what leaders do.
Leaders come in all kinds and varieties
with all sorts of caps and titles, and different circumstances require
differences in those who assume leadership responsibilities.
Each of those words -- Family, Community, and Leadership -- are
tremendously important.
You know a lot about FCL now.
We are delighted,
�6
simply overwhelmed, that 48 states plus Guam elected to come to this national
dissemination workshop.
year ago.
I remember when we first started talking about this a
Lois was always optimistic that everybody was going to come; the
realists said if we could get 30 states it would be great.
It's marvelous
that there has been such an enthusiastic response.
I have been asked to comment on plans for the future.
say much about the future because you will determine that.
I really cannot
You will decide
and you will be the key factor as to whether anything happens in your home
state -- Alabama or Maryland or wherever.
One of the realities is that foundations cannot do anything by
themselves.
We can only be helpful to you in addressing issues that you think
are important.
I suggest that if you reflect thoughtfully in addressing any
issue, or in pursuing any opportunity, money is usually not the constraint.
It is a part of the solution but usually not the limiting factor in making
really important things happen.
Only people are important.
vision, commitment, skills and energy to make things happen.
many of you comment that FCL has great potential.
except as it's vested in you.
People who have
I have heard
It really has none at all,
It will do nothing unless you make it so.
Speaking again for the Kellogg Foundation, we hope we can be a
continuing helpful partner in pursuing what we regard as an extraordinary
idea.
As Jim has indicated, the planning grants will be available to you as a
team in going back to your respective states to develop plans for the future
if you subscribe to the stanzas on page 4.12 of your hymnal (FCL Handbook).
Read page 4.12 and you will know exactly how to get a planning grant.
I would indicate further that the Kellogg Foundation is prepared to
consider assistance to those states that wish to develop a program based on
the FCL experience and model.
developed.
The detailed guidelines have not yet been
Dr. Gary King will be working on that from our perspective
�7
along with people like Dr. Dan Moore, from Penn State, who will be joining us
at the Foundation shortly.
And we certainly will work with the program
committee to develop those plans.
At this point, however, the following points seem appropriate:
1. We will be prepared to provide grants to single states, or, if you feel
that a collaborative effort of two or three or more states would be
preferable, we would certainly consider that as a desirable option.
2. We will be concerned that the program you envision be built on the basis
of these FCL materials, modified as appropriate to your state, to your
communities, to your organizational structure, to your personalities and
other appropriate factors.
Basically, however, you should draw upon this
rich reservoir of material based upon the experiences of many people in
these six-state experimental efforts.
3. We will be concerned that you incorporate the essential components of the
Family Community Leadership program.
Those are on page 4.8 of the FCL
Handbook and remember there are eight of them.
In your own state you
might want to modify some of them, and we wouldn't be concerned about that
because experiences and materials of this sort do need to be adapted as
well as adopted.
However, we would expect each component to be
thoughtfully addressed because each of them deals with a very significant
element of the FCL format.
4. In the judgment of the program committee, one of the major needs for
funding is for the expenses of volunteers, so we would be looking at the
details of the budget to see how you address that need.
5.
The Foundation will consider grants of up to $50,000 per state, probably
spread over a two- or three-year period, based again upon your own program
planning.
�8
6.
All of the t eams that request planning grants will be provided information
regarding the guid elines for requesting further support.
If and when you
and your st ate team, with the assistance of a planning grant, come up with
plans that you wish to have us consider, we will be anxious to hear from
you.
1ve think this experiment in six st ates has been exciting, and we hope
you will have opportunity to adopt and adapt -- do something in your
respective st ates.
We will be anx i ous to be helpful in bringing that about.
In closing, I remind you that in our judgment only people are
important.
Sometimes as we look at all of the issues confront ing society we
are almost overwhelmed by the future, by uncertainties, complexities, and
challenges.
Whenever I let myself get into that frame of mind as we look at
all the options a va i l a bl e to the Foundation, I like to remind myself of a few
lines that I l earned way back when.
You may be famili ar with them:
"I am only one, but I am one;
I can't do everything, but I can do something;
\fuat I c an do, I ought to do;
And what I ou ght t o do, by the grac e of God, I will do."
With reference to FeL, the potential is great, the time is right, it's
future is you :
874c
11/5/86
We wish you Gods peed.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby Papers
Subject
The topic of the resource
Charities
Family foundations--Michigan
Philanthropy and society
Description
An account of the resource
The Russell Mawby papers document the life and work of Michigan-born Russell Mawby from 1928 to the present. Mawby was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for twenty-five years and is recognized for his work in the area of philanthropy in the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
The digital collection includes a selection of field notes, speeches, itineraries, and other materials.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell G.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby Papers (JCPA-01). Johnson Center for Philanthropy Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1938-2012
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Source
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby papers, JCPA-01</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01_1986-09-26_RMawby_SPE
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby speech at the Family Community Leadership Workshop
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell
Description
An account of the resource
Speech given September 26, 1986 for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation at the Family Community Leadership Workshop.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Grand Valley State University Special Collections & University Archives
Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philanthropy and society
Family foundations--Michigan
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Charities
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1986-09-26
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/9962964f58bc5e4b569efb8d2bc90ef0.pdf
81fda0d54a9247df8598186fa5fac968
PDF Text
Text
Remar ks by RGM at Confere nce of
Counc i l o f Minnesota Foundations ,
Sept. 26, 1976 - Wayzata , Minn .
---
{
j
�H · . ~.
~ .~ ~ . G- ~
f~C'" x-~
~ ~ ~
,
\\ ~.
1 - ·.. . -
~
~
~ ~''i
~ --..::i~~
~~ \ ~
'\
~ ~
-
~~~ ~ . ~-.J'o.._
�)
,
...".
--
,~
I
-;-
u-
'9.-
�In fact, there is great temptation, for example, to give particular attention to the some 250
community foundations throughout our country, a group of foundations whose future seems particularly bright.
I
An efficient and
effective means of mobilizing private resources to serve local
needs, these foundations are serving very useful purposes in
their respective communities.
It seems safe to predict that
community foundations -- for various reasons, including their
favored position under current tax law -- will become increasingly
important in the philanthropic scene.
-
I
•
�I
na
d
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
go
u
ra
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
nt
ot
o
d
a
y
'
sp
r
i
v
a
t
eg
r
a
n
t
-m
a
k
i
n
g
~ ~
fo
u
n
d
etLon
sa
n
dt
h
ec
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
so
ft
om
o
r
r
ow
,t
h
e
r
ei
sa
na
lm
o
s
t
a
u
t
om
a
t
i
ci
n
c
l
i
n
a
t
i
o
nt
or
e
c
i
t
ea
g
a
i
nt
h
eu
n
i
q
u
ec
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
o
ft
h
e
s
ep
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
i
ce
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
;t
or
e
c
o
r
do
n
c
e mo
r
e t
h
e
i
r
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
si
nt
h
ep
a
s
ta
n
da
tp
r
e
s
e
n
t
;t
oc
h
i
d
et
h
emy
e
t
a
g
a
i
nt
ob
e mo
r
e r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
v
e
,c
r
e
a
t
i
v
e
,i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
,r
i
s
k
t
a
k
i
n
g
,
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
l
e
, som
ehow a
c
c
omm
o
d
a
t
i
n
gt
oc
r
i
t
i
c
so
fa
l
lp
e
r
s
u
a
s
i
o
n
s
[
1
who a
dm
o
n
i
s
ht
h
emf
o
rb
e
i
n
gb
o
t
ht
o
oc
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
ea
n
dt
o
o
a
c
t
i
v
i
s
t-a
n
d
,i
nl
o
o
k
i
n
gt
ot
om
o
r
r
ow
,t
or
u
no
f
fy
e
t
l
i
s
t
o
ft
h
ec
r
i
t
i
c
a
li
s
s
ues on t
h
ea
g
e
n
d
ao
fm
a
n
k
i
n
d
.
o
~
To d
o
s
ow
i
t
h t
h
i
sg
r
o
u
p
,h
ow
e
v
e
r
,w
o
u
l
ds
e
emt
os
e
r
v
el
i
t
t
l
e
u
s
e
f
u
l
p
u
r
p
o
s
e.
a
l
i
z
et
h
a
tp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s(
a
c
t
u
a
l
l
yp
r
i
v
a
t
er
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.e
w
h
i
c
ha
r
ev
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
i
l
ya
n
di
r
r
e
v
o
c
a
b
l
yc
omm
i
t
t
e
dt
op
u
b
l
i
c
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
)a
r
eb
u
to
n
e sm
a
l
lp
a
r
to
ft
h
ep
r
i
v
a
t
ev
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
ys
e
c
t
o
r
,
s
im
p
l
ya l
e
g
a
lm
e
c
h
a
n
i
sm by w
h
i
c
h t
h
ef
r
u
i
t
so
ft
h
ef
r
e
ee
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
es
y
s
t
emc
a
nb
es
y
s
t
em
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
yd
i
r
e
c
t
e
dt
os
o
c
i
a
lb
e
n
e
f
i
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
hp
r
i
v
a
t
ev
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
yi
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
.A
l
lo
fu
sh
e
r
ea
r
ec
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
dw
i
t
h t
h
ec
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
gv
i
t
a
l
i
t
yo
fp
r
i
v
a
t
ep
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
ya
n
d
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
et
h
a
t
,v
l
h
e
t
h
e
rd
o
n
e
eo
rd
o
n
o
r
,o
u
rf
u
t
u
r
e
sa
r
ei
n
e
x
t
r
i
c
a
b
l
y
e
n
tw
i
n
e
d
. I
ti
st
ot
h
a
tf
u
t
u
r
ew
h
i
c
h Ip
r
o
p
o
s
et
od
i
r
e
c
to
u
r
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
ni
nt
h
em
o
s
t c
ap
-d
id a
n
dp
r
a
gm
a
t
i
ct
e
rm
s
.
�n om
oI
;
':J:?ow
'
s
I
nt
h
ef
i
r
s
tp
l
a
c
e
,
i
t
i
ss
o
b
e
r
i
n
gt
or
e
a
l
i
z
et
h
a
tt
h
eo
n
l
yp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
nt
om
o
r
r
ow
'
sw
o
r
l
da
l
r
e
a
d
yex
i
s
tt
o
d
a
y
. U
n
d
e
r c
u
r
r
e
n
tt
a
xl
aw
,
(3
)
theb
i
r
t
hr
a
t
eo
fn
ew f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
si
sv
i
r
t
u
a
l
l
yz
e
r
o
,t
h
ef ~
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
sb
e
i
n
ge
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
yt
h
o
s
ef
o
rw
h
i
c
h i
r
r
e
v
o
c
a
b
l
ei
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
s h
a
db
e
e
n drawn p
r
e
-TR
J
'
I
.
-69
.
�F
u
r
t
h
e
r
,t
h
en
um
b
e
r
so
ff
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
si
nt
h
ef
u
t
u
r
e-u
n
l
e
s
st
h
e
r
ea
r
ec
h
a
n
g
e
si
nt
h
el
aw-w
i
l
lb
es
l
ow
l
yd
e
c
l
i
n
i
n
g
,
f
o
r c
o
u
p
l
e
dw
i
t
h t
h
ez
e
r
ob
i
r
t
hr
a
t
e
,i
sa
na
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
dd
e
a
t
h
r
a
t
e
. T
h
o
s
ep
a
s
s
i
n
gf
r
omt
h
es
c
e
n
et
h
u
sf
a
ra
r
eg
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
yt
h
e
sm
a
l
l
e
rp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
am
i
l
yf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
swho
s
e v
i
t
a
lc
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
sa
r
e
t
ol
o
c
a
lp
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
y
. T
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y compo
s
ed o
fe
q
u
i
t
yh
o
l
d
i
n
g
s
i
nt
h
ef
am
i
l
yb
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,t
h
e
ya
r
eb
e
s
e
tby t
h
ec
om
p
l
e
x
i
t
i
e
so
f
c
o
n
f
o
rm
a
n
c
ew
i
t
h t
h
e1969 l
awa
n
da
r
ep
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
yb
u
r
d
e
n
e
d by
t
h
ep
a
y
o
u
tr
u
l
e
so
fS
e
c
t
i
o
n 4942 a
n
dt
h
ed
i
v
e
s
t
i
t
u
r
ep
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
fS
e
c
t
i
o
n4
9
4
3
. F
o
rm
any
, t
h
eo
n
l
yr
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
ec
o
u
r
s
es
e
em
s
e
i
t
h
e
rd
i
s
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
no
r
,o
f som
ewh
a
tl
e
s
sn
e
g
a
t
i
v
ec
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
et
o
p
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
y
,t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
e
n
c
eo
fa
s
s
e
t
st
oa commun
i
ty f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
.
N
o
n
e
t
h
e
l
e
s
s
, t
h
e
yp
a
s
sf
r
omt
h
ep
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
ns
c
e
n
e
.
F
i
n
a
l
l
y
,p
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
si
nt
om
o
r
r
ow
'
sw
o
r
l
dw
i
l
lh
a
v
e
~
al
e
s
s
e
n
i
n
gs
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
ei
nt
h
et
o
t
a
ls
o
c
i
a
ls
c
e
n
e
. W
h
i
l
e o
u
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
le
conomy w
i
l
lc
o
n
t
i
n
u
et
og
r
ow
,t
h
er
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
so
f
p
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sw
i
l
ln
o
tk
e
e
pp
a
c
ei
ne
i
t
h
e
rr
e
l
a
t
i
v
eo
r
s
p
e
c
to
ft
h
i
sp
r
o
b
l
em r
e
l
a
t
e
st
oi
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
a
b
s
o
l
u
t
et
e
rm
s
. 'nea
Th
ee
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
la
n
ds
e
r
v
i
c
ee
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
sw
h
i
c
ha
r
et
h
eu
s
u
a
lc
o
n
c
e
r
n
so
fp
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
yt
e
n
dt
oe
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
ei
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
yp
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
b
e
y
o
n
dt
h
a
tf
o
rt
h
ee
conomy i
ng
e
n
e
r
a
l
. M
o
s
t d
am
a
g
i
n
gt
ot
h
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
yo
fp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
st
os
e
r
v
et
om
o
r
r
ow
'
se
x
p
a
n
d
i
n
g
n
e
e
d
s
,h
ow
e
v
e
r
,a
r
et
h
o
s
ep
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
so
f TRA
-69 w
h
i
c
ha
r
ed
r
y
i
n
g
~
~
t
h
ef
l
owo
fn
ew c
a
p
i
t
a
li
n
t
oe
x
i
s
t
i
n
gf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sa
n
dwh
i
ch
m
a
n
d
a
t
e t
h
ec
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
ge
r
o
s
i
o
no
ft
h
e
i
rp
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
ea
s
s
e
t
s
.
4
�M
any o
ft
o
d
a
y
'
sf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s-t
h
eW
. K
. K
e
l
l
o
g
gF
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
i
n
gb
u
to
n
ee
x
am
p
l
e-s
t
a
r
t
e
da
s sm
a
l
lf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sw
h
i
c
h
l
a
t
e
rr
e
c
e
i
v
e
ds
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
la
s
s
e
t
sf
r
om~
d
o
n
o
ra
n
d
/
o
rh
i
s
e
s
t
a
t
e
. M
any o
ft
h
esm
a
l
l
e
rf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
so
ft
o
d
a
yw
e
r
e c
r
e
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h t
h
es
am
ei
n
t
e
n
t
. How
ev
e
r
, b
e
c
a
u
s
eo
ft
h
es
e
v
e
r
a
ld
i
s
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
so
f TRA
-69
, no s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
tam
o
u
n
to
fn
ew c
a
p
i
t
a
lw
i
l
l
now f
l
owi
n
t
ot
h
e
s
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
B
u
tt
h
em
o
s
t d
e
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
n
gp
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
no
ft
h
ec
u
r
r
e
n
tCod
ei
s
S
e
c
t
i
o
n4
9
4
2
,w
h
i
c
h r
e
q
u
i
r
e
st
h
a
tp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sp
a
y
o
u
t
f
o
rt
h
e
i
rc
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
ep
u
r
p
o
s
e
se
a
c
hy
e
a
rt
h
eg
r
e
a
t
e
ro
fn
e
ti
n
c
om
e
o
r6 p
e
r
c
e
n
to
ft
h
em
a
r
k
e
t v
a
l
u
eo
ft
h
e
i
ra
s
s
e
t
s
. I
n
v
e
s
b
n
e
n
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s know t
h
a
th
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
yp
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
sp
r
o
d
u
c
el
e
s
st
h
a
n
6p
e
r
c
e
n
t
,a
c
t
u
a
l
l
yo
v
e
rt
h
el
o
n
gt
e
rmsom
ewh
e
r
ec
l
o
s
e
rt
o
3
.
5o
r4p
e
r
c
e
n
t
. T
h
u
s
, t
om
e
e
t t
h
i
se
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
ep
a
y
o
u
tr
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
, f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nm
a
n
a
g
e
r
s m
u
s
t c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
l
yi
n
v
a
d
et
h
e
i
rc
o
r
p
u
s
,
t
h
u
sc
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
l
l
ye
r
o
d
i
n
gaw
ay t
h
ep
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
eb
a
s
e on w
h
i
c
h t
h
e
i
r
p
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
i
ca
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
sd
e
p
e
n
d
. T
h
i
si
sa
nu
n
s
o
u
n
dp
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
i
nt
h
ep
r
u
d
e
n
tf
i
s
c
a
lm
an
ag
em
en
t o
fp
r
i
v
a
t
ee
n
t
i
t
i
e
sa
n
dw
i
l
l
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
l
y im
p
a
i
rt
h
ee
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
so
fa
l
lf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
L
e
tm
e i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
et
h
eim
p
a
c
to
ft
h
ep
r
e
s
e
n
tp
a
y
o
u
tr
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t u
s
i
n
gt
h
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nw
i
t
hw
h
i
c
h I ama
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
. F
rom
i
t
si
n
c
e
p
t
i
o
ni
n1935 t
h
r
o
u
g
hi
t
s1976 f
i
s
c
a
ly
e
a
r
,t
h
eW
. K
.
K
e
l
l
o
g
gF
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nT
r
u
s
tw
i
l
lh
a
v
em
ad
e a
c
t
u
a
ld
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f $296 m
i
l
l
i
o
n f
o
rc
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
ep
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
. I
ft
h
ed
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
em
e
n
t
so
f TRA
-69 h
a
db
e
e
ni
ne
f
f
e
c
td
u
r
i
n
gt
h
o
s
e42 y
e
a
r
s
5
�and had the Trust been required to annually distribute the
higher of income or 6 percent of the market value of its
assets, the distribution over the period would have totaled
$316 million, or an increase of only $20 million.
However,
to meet this mandatory payout requirement, the Trust would
have had to sell Kellogg stock having a market value today
of $440 million.
Thus, to provide a 6 1/2 percent increase
to charity, the Trust's curyent assets would have been reduced
by 53% to a market value of $392 million, as opposed to its
actual market value of $832 million.
Furthermore, future distributions to charity would have
been significantly reduced because of the depleted assets and
1
earnings of the Trust.
This is evide nced by the fact that
during 1976 the Trust will earn approximately $31 million
which will be distributed for charitable purposes as opposed
to earnings of only $15 million which would be available had
its assets been depleted by the TRA-69 payout requirements.
Such evidence as this convinces us that the best interests
of society are not being served by existing legislation and
that, while many provisions of TRA-69 are laudatory, certain
others warrant modification on the basis of experience to date.
In these observations, I have referred often to small
foundations.
The Foundation Center tells us that there are
approximately 25,000 private grant-making foundations in this
country.
When the word "foundation" is mentioned, even to those
6
�k
n
ow
l
e
d
g
e
a
b
l
ei
nt
h
ef
i
e
l
d
,t
h
ei
n
s
t
a
n
tr
e
a
c
t
i
o
ni
st
ot
h
i
n
k~
b
i
g
: F
o
r
d
,R
o
c
k
e
f
e
l
l
e
r
, J
o
h
n
s
o
n
,M
e
l
l
o
n
, K
r
e
s
g
e
, L
i
l
l
y
,
p
e
r
h
a
p
se
v
e
nK
e
l
l
o
g
g
.
N ~~
T
h
e
s
ea
r
eh
i
g
h
l
yv
i
s
i
b
l
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sw
i
t
h
l
a
r
g
ea
s
s
e
t
s
,s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
la
n
n
u
a
le
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
,p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
a
f
f
,a
n
da n
a
t
i
o
n
a
lo
ri
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
ls
p
h
e
r
eo
fa
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
. B
u
tw
e
n
e
e
dt
or
em
i
n
do
u
r
s
e
l
v
e
st
h
a
t90% o
ft
h
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s-o
rsom
e
2
2
,
5
0
0-h
a
v
ea
s
s
e
t
so
fl
e
s
st
h
a
n$1 m
i
l
l
i
o
n
.
e
n
do
ft
h
es
i
z
es
p
e
c
t
r
um
,o
n
l
y~
A
tt
h
eo
t
h
e
r
h
a
v
ea
s
s
e
t
so
f $100 m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
rm
o
r
e
.
W
h
i
l
e t
h
eb
i
gf
ewm
ay b
et
h
em
o
s
t n
ew
sw
o
r
t
h
yi
nv
i
ew
o
ft
h
em
e
d
i
a
, t
h
e"
q
u
i
e
tm
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
" o
ft
h
ep
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
l
da
r
e
o
i
io~
p
u
r
s
u
i
n
gt
h
e
i
rr
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
ea
n
dd
i
v
e
r
s
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
si
nt
h
e
i
ri
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
lc
omm
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
. And t
ot
h
ep
e
o
p
l
e
o
ft
h
o
s
ec
omm
u
n
i
t
i
e
s-l
a
r
g
ea
n
d sm
a
l
l
,i
ne
v
e
r
ys
t
a
t
e-a
n
d
t
ot
h
ep
r
i
v
a
t
ev
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
yo
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
sa
n
di
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
sw
h
i
c
h
s
e
r
v
el
o
c
a
ln
e
e
d
s
,t
h
em
o
d
e
s
t c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
so
ft
h
e
s
eq
u
i
e
t
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sa
r
ev
i
t
a
li
n
d
e
e
d
.
B
u
ti
nt
h
ep
u
b
l
i
ca
r
e
n
a-e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
ya
sp
o
l
i
c
yd
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
a
r
em
ad
e -t
h
eq
u
i
e
tm
a
j
o
r
i
t
y a
r
en
o
th
e
a
r
d
. I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
l
y
t
h
e
yh
a
v
el
i
t
t
l
e
v
o
i
c
e
;e
v
e
nc
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
,i
ncommon w
i
t
h a
l
l
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
,t
h
e
yl
a
c
kp
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
lc
l
o
u
t
. U
s
u
a
l
l
y t
h
o
s
ewho
a
r
el
o
o
k
e
dt
ot
os
p
e
a
kf
o
rf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sa
r
ef
r
omt
h
ea
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
b
i
gf
ew
. Too o
f
t
e
nt
h
e
ys
p
e
a
kf
r
omt
h
el
im
i
t
e
dv
a
n
t
a
g
ep
o
i
n
t
o
ft
h
e
i
rp
e
r
s
o
n
a
le
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
eo
rs
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
,w
i
t
h
o
u
tr
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
i
n
g
o
ra
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
n
gt
h
a
tt
h
e
i
rp
o
s
i
t
i
o
nm
ay n
o
tr
e
f
l
e
c
tt
h
ew
i
sdom
7
�o
rb
e
s
ti
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
so
ft
h
ep
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
nf
i
e
l
da
tl
a
r
g
e
.
1
0l
t
sg
r
e
a
tc
r
e
d
i
t
,t
h
eCoun
ci
{h
is d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y among f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sa
n
di
n
~
nd
u
p
u
b
l
i
cs
t
a
t
em
e
n
t
/
c
ts t
h
ebrO
a
d
s
u
c
he
x
c
e
1
1
e~
r
e
p
o
r
tw
h
i
c
h t
h
eC
o
u
n
c
i
l
u
s
ei
n
~
~
~
/
~ i
s
t
otn
e
F
i
l
e
rC
omm
i
s
s
i
o
n
~
IV
W
h
i
l
e t
h
i
sa
s
s
e
s
sm
e
n
to
ft
o
d
a
y
'
sf
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
ni
nt
om
o
r
r
ow
'
s
w
o
r
l
dm
ay h
a
v
ea g
l
o
om
yc
om
p
l
e
x
i
o
n
,i
t
i
ss
h
a
r
p
l
yb
r
i
g
h
t
e
n
e
d
b
y twor
e
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
F
i
r
s
t
,t
h
ea
g
e
n
d
ao
fp
r
e
s
s
i
n
g hum
an i
s
s
u
e
sd
e
s
e
r
v
i
n
gt
h
e
b
e
s
te
f
f
o
r
t
so
fb
o
t
hp
r
i
v
a
t
ea
n
dp
u
b
l
i
cr
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
si
sl
o
n
ga
n
d
u
r
g
e
n
t
. I
nr
e
c
e
n
ty
e
a
r
s
,a
sg
o
v
e
r
nm
e
n
th
a
sg
r
ow
ne
v
e
rl
a
r
g
e
r
a
n
d mo
r
e e
n
c
om
p
a
s
s
i
n
ga
ta
l
ll
e
v
e
l
s
,som
eh
a
v
es
e
e
nt
h
ep
u
b
l
i
c
t
a
x
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
ds
e
c
t
o
ra
st
h
eu
l
t
im
a
t
ea
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
ta
n
de
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
na
l
lp
r
o
g
r
am
so
fs
o
c
i
a
lp
u
r
p
o
s
e
. T
h
i
sc
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
sw
i
t
h t
h
e
t
e
s
t
e
dt
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
no
ft
h
eAm
e
r
i
c
a
ne
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e-t
h
em
u
t
u
a
l
l
y
b
e
n
e
f
i
c
i
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
so
fp
u
b
l
i
ca
n
dp
r
i
v
a
t
ee
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
ei
n
s
e
r
v
i
n
gt
h
eb
e
s
ti
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
so
fo
u
rn
a
t
i
o
na
n
di
t
sp
e
o
p
l
e
.
B
u
tt
h
e
r
ei
snow a g
r
ow
i
n
g aw
a
r
e
n
e
s
s among o
u
rc
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
t
h
a
tb
u
r
g
e
o
n
i
n
gg
o
v
e
r
nm
e
n
t
a
lp
r
o
g
r
am
sa
n
db
u
r
e
a
u
c
r
a
c
i
e
s
,e
v
e
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
ro
u
t
p
o
u
r
i
n
g
so
fg
o
v
e
r
nm
e
n
t
a
lf
u
n
d
sa
r
en
o
tf
u
l
f
i
l
l
i
n
g
o
u
rn
a
t
i
o
n
'
sg
o
a
l
s
. S
im
u
l
t
a
n
e
o
u
s
l
yi
nt
h
ev
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
ys
e
c
t
o
r
,
p
r
o
g
r
am
sa
n
dp
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
sa
r
eb
e
c
om
i
n
g mo
r
e s
o
p
h
i
s
t
i
c
a
t
e
d
,
8
�responding in more adequate ways to the complex problems of
society.
The varied talents of volunteers are being effectively
utilized in more sensitive and valuable services which meet
human needs.
Often working in concert, public and private
efforts--in health care, education, libraries, services for
the elderly and the handicapped, youth-serving organizations,
church-related activities, special needs of minorities, cultural
arts--are better meeting human needs than could either alone.
Voluntary giving -- of time, talent, money -- will continue
to be an important ingredient in the betterment of the human
condition, enhancing recipient and giver alike.
Common sense tells us that the future will be even more
demanding of individuals and institutions than the past.
In
the spirit of this conference, the best of both the private
and the public will be required.
Hopefully private initiative
and voluntary effort will be permitted and encouraged to play
a major and appropriate role in the future as in the past.
Second, though certain provisions of TRA-69 are proving
counter-productive to the best interests of society by impacting negatively on philanthropy, the law can be modified.
Experience over the past six years provides a basis for careful review and revision through the Congressional process.
Unhappily, to date in the crowded agenda of priorities
confronting Congress, the subject of tax reform has received
scant attention.
And when tax matters are addressed, the
9
�/
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
so
fp
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
yh
a
v
en
o
tr
a
n
k
e
dh
i
g
h
. H
o
p
e
f
u
l
l
y
,
c
o
n
c
e
r
t
e
de
f
f
o
r
tb
ys
u
c
ha
st
h
eg
r
o
u
pa
s
s
em
b
l
e
dh
e
r
ew
i
l
l
r
e
s
u
l
ti
nf
u
r
t
h
e
rc
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
no
ft
h
e
s
em
a
t
t
e
r
s b
yC
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
.
Iw
o
u
l
d em
p
h
a
s
i
z
et
h
a
tmy c
o
n
c
e
r
nY
e
s
t
s n
o
ta
l
o
n
ew
i
t
hp
r
i
v
a
t
e
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
,b
u
tw
i
t
ha
l
lp
o
l
i
c
yi
s
s
u
e
sa
n
dl
aw
sw
h
i
c
hb
e
a
ro
n
t
h
ep
r
i
v
a
t
en
o
n
p
r
o
f
i
ts
e
c
t
o
r
. F
o
re
x
am
p
l
e
,w
e m
u
s
tb
ev
i
g
i
l
a
n
t
t
h
a
tf
u
r
t
h
e
rd
am
ag
ei
sn
o
td
o
n
et
h
r
o
u
g
hc
h
a
n
g
e
sw
h
i
c
hc
o
u
l
d
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
ya
f
f
e
c
tc
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
eg
i
v
i
n
g by a
l
t
e
r
i
n
gt
h
ec
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
e
d
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
no
rd
i
s
c
o
u
r
a
g
i
n
gg
i
f
t
so
fa
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e
da
s
s
e
t
s
.
On
e h
o
p
e
d
f
o
ro
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
eo
ft
h
eComm
i
s
s
ion on P
r
i
v
a
t
e
P
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
ya
n
dP
u
b
l
i
cN
e
ed
s i
st
os
t
im
u
l
a
t
ea s
y
s
t
em
a
t
i
c
r
e
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
gby t
h
eAm
e
r
i
c
a
np
e
o
p
l
eo
ft
h
er
o
l
eo
ft
h
ep
r
i
v
a
t
e
n
o
n
p
r
o
f
i
ts
e
c
t
o
r
. Th
ea
n
a
l
y
s
e
sa
n
dr
e
c
omm
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
so
ft
h
e
C
omm
i
s
s
i
o
np
r
o
v
i
d
eu
s
e
f
u
la
n
ds
t
im
u
l
a
t
i
n
gi
n
s
i
g
h
ta
n
dc
a
n
s
e
r
v
ea
st
h
eb
a
s
i
sf
o
rr
e
a
p
p
r
a
i
s
a
l
,n
o
to
n
l
ya
tt
h
en
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
lb
u
ta
tt
h
eg
r
a
s
sr
o
o
t
s
. Th
ec
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
et
ot
h
eg
r
o
u
ph
e
r
e
a
s
s
em
b
l
e
di
st
oh
e
l
pt
h
i
sh
a
p
p
e
na
c
r
o
s
st
h
el
a
n
d
. L
e
t
'
sn
o
t
m
i
s
s t
h
i
so
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
!
I
nsumm
a
ry
,i
f
p
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sa
r
et
ob
ea
n im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
p
a
r
to
ft
om
o
r
r
ow
'
sw
o
r
l
d
, s
e
r
i
o
u
st
h
o
u
g
h
ts
h
o
u
l
db
eg
i
v
e
nt
o
t
h
ef
o
l
l
ow
i
n
g
:
1
. T
h
ep
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
so
fTRA
-69 w
h
i
c
h im
p
a
c
tn
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
ya
n
d
d
i
s
c
r
im
i
n
a
t
ea
g
a
i
n
s
tp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
ss
h
o
u
l
db
em
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
.
B
th
eF
i
l
e
Co
~
~~
-
~ -
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
±
o
n
.-
i-- ~o
t
h
e
r
e
_
s
h
o
u
l
db
ear
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
no
ft
h
e4%
10
�excise tax, which diverts money from donees; an adjustment of
the required annual payout; removal of special limitations on
gifts to foundations; adjustments in certain divestiture requirementsi and an easing of certain program restrictions.
2.
Diversity among private foundations should be pre-
served and encouraged.
Fortunately, all do not have the same
purposes, ar eas of interest, style of operation, or sphere of
activity.
Such variety, with responsible stewardship by
conscientious trustees and managers and with appropriate
supervision in the public interest, serves donees and society
ert-a-:i:n-l-y-pri va Le foum:lat ions
as well.
us-t -be res p o n-sive to -"'-=!-''-U.J..
t toe
panel on Wednesda
he s e-a.r-El-a-S
0
f
a,.;t;.t..e tl t j on
Sb0
lJ
1d no-t b
e.
donee groups, described by some as traditional
'fyP
ut
Other eligible
the United
Way, the Boy Scouts, 4-H, the symphony, hospitals and homes for
the elderly, colleges and universities, both public and private
should not be denied continuing private sustenance.
3.
Constr aints and regulation, whether by governmental
edict or self-imposed by the field, should be kept to a minimum.
Again assuming responsible stewardship and appropriate supervision, private foundations should not be further burdened with
stifling regulations, bureaucratic procedures, unending caveats.
4.
Finally, voluntary giving
whether of time or talent
or money and by whatever means -- is a fragile human action,
11
�subject to careful nurturing but easily turned off.
The person
of means who corrunits resources to a private foundation does so
voluntarily, irrevocably and completely -- 100 percent, beyond
any rate of taxation.
Further, those funds can then be ex-
pended only in accordance with the tax law, under IRS
]
supervision, and only for purposes and to
org Qnizations and
institutions designated by Congress as being e ducational,
charitable and in the public interest.
To go far beyond this
in prescribing issues to be addressed, clientele to be served,
procedures and policies will be counter to the interests of
a vital private sector.
Centralized dictation will serve only
to further deplete the philanthropic reservoir.
(
�~ ~iJ--.- ~
~
<
2
.
.
.
v
-
~
'-J~~
...'~
I
fp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
,l
a
r
g
eand sm
a
l
l
,a
r
et
oc
o
n
t
i
n
u
et
op
l
a
y
a
v
i
t
a
lr
o
l
ei
ns
h
a
p
i
n
gt
h
eq
u
a
l
i
t
yo
fl
i
f
ei
no~ c
o
u
n
t
r
y
,t
h
eg
e
n
e
r
a
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
,a
sw
e
l
la
st
h
el
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
o
r
swho r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
tth
em
,mu
s
tb
eb
e
t
t
e
r
in
fo
rm
ed
. Found
a
t
ion
sc
anandmu
s
t imp
rov
eou
r im
ag
ew
i
t
ht
h
eg
e
n
e
r
a
l
~i , w
i
t
hl
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
o
r
s
,andc
e
r
t
a
i
n
l
yw
i
t
h YOU t
h
eg
r
a
n
t
s
e
e
k
e
r
sby
do
ing f
i
v
er
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
ys
im
p
l
et
h
i
n
g
s
. We mu
s
t
:
1
.
C
l
e
a
r
l
yd
e
f
i
n
eandp
u
b
l
i
s
hou
r prog
r
amm
a
t
i
cand g
eog
r
aph
i
c
a
r
e
a
so
fi
n
t
e
r
e
s
tando
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
.
u
b
l
i
s
h andc
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
es
imp
l
er
e
a
d
a
b
l
ea
n
n
u
a
lr
e
p
o
r
t
st
oo
u
r
2
.
P
con
sum
e
r
s andt
ot
h
eg
e
n
e
r
a
lp
u
b
l
i
c
.
l
edg
e co
r
r
e
spond
en
c
ef
romg
r
a
n
t
s
e
e
k
e
r
s
;g
i
v
e th
em
3
.
Acknow
t
h
ei
n
f
o
rm
a
t
i
o
nt
h
ey n
e
ed t
od
e
t
e
rm
in
et
h
et
y
p
e
so
fp
rog
r
am
s
w
em
ay b
ea
b
l
et
os
u
p
p
o
r
t
.
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
hr
e
g
u
l
a
rg
ran
tr
ev
i
ewc
r
i
t
e
r
i
aandp
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
.
4
.
E
M
a
k
e
o
u
r
p
r
o
g
r
am
s
k
n
o
w
n
t
o
o
u
r
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
o
r
s
&
l
d
t
o
t
h
o
s
ewho
5
.
w
i
l
li
n
f
l
u
en
ce t
h
ef
o
rm
u
l
a
t
i
o
no
ff
u
t
u
r
ep
o
l
i
c
y
.
Th
et
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
lr
e
t
i
c
e
n
c
eon t
h
ep
a
r
to
fm
any f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sh
a
s
i
n
h
i
b
i
t
e
dt
h
ek
i
n
do
fp
u
b
l
i
cunde
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
gand c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
d
e
s
e
r
v
e
. T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
smu
s
t t
a
k
ea mo
r
e a
c
t
i
v
er
o
l
ei
ni
n
fo
rm
ingt
h
ep
u
b
l
i
cabou
to
u
rm
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
, o
u
r un
iqu
ec
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
sand
g
e
n
e
r
a
ld
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
so
ft
h
ewo
rk w
ea
r
edo
ing
.
6
�-J-a -
-
�v
Th
er
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
so
fp
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
sa
r
e sm
a
l
li
nr
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
on
e
e
d
. B
u
tu
t
i
l
i
z
e
dw
i
s
e
l
y
, t
h
e
yp
l
a
y
ad
i
s
t
i
n
c
t
i
v
er
o
l
e
,
o
f
t
e
nc
r
i
t
i
c
a
la
n
dc
a
t
a
l
y
t
i
c
,i
np
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
gf
o
re
x
p
e
r
im
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
,e
x
p
l
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
,s
e
r
v
i
c
e.
.
.
.a
n
dt
h
e
r
e
b
yc
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
ob
e
t
t
e
rm
e
n
to
ft
h
ehum
an c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
I
nc
o
n
c
e
r
tw
i
t
ht
h
ep
u
b
l
i
cs
e
c
t
o
r
,p
r
i
v
a
t
ei
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
ei
s
v
i
t
a
lt
of
u
r
t
h
e
rp
r
o
g
r
e
s
si
nf
u
l
f
i
l
lm
e
n
to
ft
h
e
i
~
d
r
e
am
.
P
r
i
v
a
t
ef
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
,o
n
c
ea
na
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
l
ys
e
c
u
r
ep
a
r
to
fp
h
i
l
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
y
,
a
r
enow a
ne
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
ds
p
e
c
i
e
s
. I
ft
h
e
ya
r
et
ob
ea v
i
t
a
lp
a
r
t
o
fp
r
i
v
a
t
ee
f
f
o
r
ti
nt
h
ef
u
t
u
r
ea
si
nt
h
ep
a
s
t
,t
h
e
ym
u
s
t h
a
v
e
t
h
eu
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
,s
u
p
p
o
r
t
,a
n
dh
e
l
po
fo
t
h
e
r
swho f
e
e
la
s do
w
e t
h
a
tp
r
i
v
a
t
ev
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
ye
f
f
o
r
ti
sim
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
. O
u
r
sm
u
s
t b
ea
r
e
a
f
f
i
rm
a
t
i
o
no
ft
h
ei
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
la
n
dt
h
ev
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
,t
h
a
tt
h
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
s
tnumb
e
rm
ay b
e
n
e
f
i
ta
n
dt
h
eh
i
g
h
e
s
tg
o
a
l
sb
es
e
r
v
e
d
.
12
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby Papers
Subject
The topic of the resource
Charities
Family foundations--Michigan
Philanthropy and society
Description
An account of the resource
The Russell Mawby papers document the life and work of Michigan-born Russell Mawby from 1928 to the present. Mawby was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for twenty-five years and is recognized for his work in the area of philanthropy in the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
The digital collection includes a selection of field notes, speeches, itineraries, and other materials.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell G.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby Papers (JCPA-01). Johnson Center for Philanthropy Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1938-2012
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Source
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/432">Russell Mawby papers, JCPA-01</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
JCPA-01_1976-09-26_RMawby_SPE
Title
A name given to the resource
Russell Mawby speech at the Council of Minnesota Foundations
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawby, Russell
Description
An account of the resource
Speech given September 26, 1976 for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation at the Council of Minnesota Foundations to discuss the importance of foundations in the community.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Grand Valley State University Special Collections & University Archives
Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philanthropy and society
Family foundations--Michigan
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Charities
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1976-09-26
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text