TIAA-CREF President and CEO Herbert Allison welcomed participants to the 16th annual Foundation Conversation in September at TIAA-CREF headquarters
in New York City.

CIC’s largest-ever Conversation Between Foundation Officers and College and University Presidents, which took place in New York City on September 20, focused on why foundations change their priorities in grant-making. Held at TIAA-CREF headquarters, the 2004 Conversation—16th in an annual series—drew a record 138 participants.
    Among the concerns addressed were: What process do foundations use when changing their priorities? How can foundations enhance the exercise of social responsibilities by colleges and universities? And how effective are private colleges and universities as agents of social change? Participants also explored the role of the independent sector of higher education in meeting human capital needs and the implications for state spending and tax policies.
    Foundations’ Changing Priorities for Independent Colleges and Universities was the theme. Two recently appointed foundation presidents, Robert Connor of the Teagle Foundation and Michael Gilligan of the Henry R. Luce Foundation, addressed the hows and whys of changes in foundation priorities.
    Even while its grant programs change, Gilligan emphasized that Luce “is not losing its interest in or commitment to higher education.” He pointed to “60 percent of grants (about $35 million a year) currently distributed to higher education” as evidence.
    Gilligan cautioned that “foundations are able to move more quickly than universities on initiatives.” What seem from the outside to be “intractable problems” in higher education—tenure and the lack of mobility that accompanies it, as well as bureaucratic tendencies—also “can make businesses or foundations reluctant to remain highly committed to funding,” he said.
    Connor recounted the moratorium on all new institutional grants that the Teagle Foundation had imposed in the wake of the sharp downturn in the stock market, which has reduced the assets of many foundations.
    Changes in foundations’ priorities originate both from forces within the philanthropic sector, Connor said, and from changes in the behaviors and values of colleges and universities. From the foundation side, “donor fatigue leads to a tendency to want to move on to other projects.”
    “Higher education has exacerbated the problem in two respects,” Connor warned. “Colleges and universities have slipped into representing themselves as a source of private gain rather than public good,” which clashes with the commitment of foundations to support the public good. “And the shift in financial aid from grants to loans—stemming from the belief that ‘students benefit from a college education, so they should pay for it’—has led to graduates with frightening levels of debt.”
    Both Gilligan and Connor discussed emerging initiatives at their foundations. The Luce Foundation is developing a program that will focus on strengthening Americans’ understanding of the rest of the world with opportunities for research and publication, international education, and student exchange. Connor said the Teagle Foundation’s future grant-making will expect more “systematic, quantitative analysis on outcomes,” especially “stronger efforts in value-added assessments” of what students take from their college studies. (See the related article on CIC’s new Teagle Foundation grant on page 22.)

 Alison Bernstein, vice president for
knowledge, creativity, and freedom at the Ford Foundation, urged college presidents to take a fresh look at social responsibility.

The day’s second session featured Alison Bernstein, vice president for knowledge, creativity, and freedom at the Ford Foundation; and Neil Grabois, vice president of the Carnegie Corpora-tion of New York. They addressed the questions: How can foundations en-hance the exercise of social responsibility by colleges and universities? And, how effective are private colleges as agents of social change?
    Bernstein described educational institutions as “important social actors” with “a capacity to do things differently…. The way institutions use their facilities, their role as an employer, their financial aid packages, and their deals with corporations” all seemed to be areas where a fresh look at socially responsible behavior is called for. She challenged presidents to renew on-campus attention to questions such as: “What does it take to be a socially responsible citizen? How can we engage with the ‘other’ outside the United States? Where do values come from? Why do most college and university faculty members run away from discussions of religion—particularly how it impacts society and its role in a global society? Bernstein urged the creation of on-campus “institutes aimed at conducting socially responsible research.”
    Grabois identified higher education institutions as “central in effecting social change,” but regretted that they have “not been as effective in managing social change as they could be.” Colleges should think beyond teaching and research, he urged, and “be sensitive to community issues.”
    Grabois also pointed to a tension between “foundations eager to invest
in higher education” and “institutions that do something that cannot continue beyond the life of the grant.” His advice was “propose projects that can be managed effectively and continue independently beyond the life of the grant.”
    A consistent theme of the Conversation was that colleges and universities should work
in groups when they seek philanthropic support. Grabois and Connor both emphasized the importance of developing programs geared toward benefiting society at large rather than just individual institutions. Bernstein called for “interinstitutional arrangements that focus on collective problems and best practices” and that incorporate measures of effectiveness
or prove the worth of the investment in other ways.
    The Foundation Conversation concluded with an analysis of the role of independent higher education in meeting human capital needs. The speaker was Jamie Merisotis, president of the Institute for Higher Education Policy. Merisotis said, “It is very clear that independent higher education produces results—students graduate at much higher rates than students at public institutions.” He urged foundations to “take chances on lesser known institutions,” do more than “stick with the standard bearers,” and “help make the case for independent higher education.”