It’s not necessarily the most popular take, but I am not afraid to admit it: I am a believer in long-time horizon — or perpetual — foundations. Like any category of institution, they’re not all equally effective, and I do have a request to make of them (I’ll get to that in a moment), but I think their potential to do good is high.
To be clear, I very much like, respect, and believe in spend-down foundations, too: there are great and powerful examples, from Julius Rosenwald to Irene Diamond to Chuck Feeney, of donors whose approaches to “giving while living” have been downright inspiring — and created a lasting impact. I think MacKenzie Scott is on a similar path (without a foundation in her case). I’d love to see many more follow in these donors’ footsteps.
But I also believe perpetual foundations play a distinct and crucial role. I think the “right” approach — spend down or perpetuity or wait-and-see — is dependent on a donor and foundation board’s values and specific goals. That freedom to decide what time horizon makes sense for a particular donor or board given their objectives is a good thing — it strengthens philanthropy and nonprofits.
Read more from the Center for Effective Philanthropy.