logo
    • Magazine
    • Membership
    • Donate
  • Racial Justice
  • Economic Justice
    • Collections
  • Climate Justice
  • Health Justice
  • Leadership
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Subscribe
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Complimentary Webinars
    • Premium On-Demand Webinars
  • Membership
  • Submissions

The Wealth Gap as Reflected in Gifts to Universities: Is There a Crowd-Out Effect?

Ruth McCambridge
June 27, 2018
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print

June 26, 2018; Bloomberg Businessweek

According to the Council for Aid to Education, a dozen high-dollar donors accounted for almost one-third of the dollars given to colleges in the last year. At the same time, the percentage of alumni who give has plummeted from 19 percent in 1990 to 7.4 percent last year. What is going on and is it healthy for an institution when its base of supporters grows ever smaller?

This pattern, as we wrote in our piece about the findings of Giving USA, reflects the larger wealth gap in the economy and the increase in very-high-end gifts. As we said in that piece, in each of the last three years, Giving USA has raised the floor on mega-gifts that threw off their report’s algorithms. Three years ago, mega-gifts were defined as those over $100 million; in 2017, they were counted as “mega” only if they hit $300 million or above.

Within charity research, there has been much written on the “crowding out” and “crowding in” effects of government funding. Garth Heutel writes:

Public goods are often provided by both governments and individuals. The interaction of these two sources may affect the overall level of funding. In response to an increase in government spending on a public good or charity, individuals may reduce their contributions. The same effect can occur in the opposite direction. If a government sees that private donations to a charity have risen, then it may reduce its support of that charity. Additionally, some funding may crowd in other funding if it signals charity quality.

Sign up for our free newsletters

Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

The wealth divide in the larger economy, of course, appears to have also created a divide in institutions. Less than one percent of the nation’s colleges brought in around 30 percent of the $43.7 billion given to higher education. Harvard and Stanford Universities set records last year by bringing in $1.28 and $1.13 billion respectively. It’s no wonder that more moderately well-off alumni would not see the need to give in the context of individual donations in the hundreds of millions.

Institutions that Raised the Most in 2017

  1. Harvard University ($1.28 billion)
  2. Stanford University ($1.13 billion)
  3. Cornell University ($743.50 million)
  4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($672.94 million)
  5. University of Southern California ($668.33 million)
  6. Johns Hopkins University ($636.91 million)
  7. University of Pennsylvania ($626.49 million)
  8. Columbia University ($603.08 million)
  9. Yale University ($595.89 million)
  10. Duke University ($581.05 million)
  11. New York University ($567.12 million)
  12. University of Washington ($553.89 million)
  13. University of California-Los Angeles ($550.93 million)
  14. University of Chicago ($483.47 million)
  15. University of Michigan ($456.13 million)
  16. University of Notre Dame ($451.43 million)
  17. University of California-San Francisco ($422.17 million)
  18. University of California-Berkeley ($404.59 million)
  19. Ohio State University ($401.85 million)
  20. Indiana University ($398.26 million)
(Data from the Council for Aid to Education.)

At Harvard, the size of some of the individual donations has been truly mind-boggling of late. In its latest—and now successfully completed—$9 billion campaign, hedge fund manager John Paulson gave an historic $400 million while hedge fund Citadel Advisors’ Ken Griffin gave $150 million. Another $50 million came from investor Len Blavatnik’s Family foundation, and the foundation of Glenn Hutchins of private equity firm Silver Lake gave $30 million.

Not only does this kind of money create the kind of skepticism in Congress that leads to taxes on endowments, but in light of such massive gifts, the money of regular folk just doesn’t seem so important. Bloomberg cites one such case:

Jonathan Hoffman, Harvard class of 1969 and a lawyer in Portland, Ore., says he gave “substantial sums” a decade ago but cut back to $100 a year—and now, nothing—because he didn’t think an institution that pays its endowment managers millions of dollars a year needed his cash. He gives to Room to Read and Habitat for Humanity instead. “There are so many organizations in need,” he says.

Just a thought, but maybe worth some investigation.—Ruth McCambridge

Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ruth McCambridge

Ruth is Editor Emerita of the Nonprofit Quarterly. Her background includes forty-five years of experience in nonprofits, primarily in organizations that mix grassroots community work with policy change. Beginning in the mid-1980s, Ruth spent a decade at the Boston Foundation, developing and implementing capacity building programs and advocating for grantmaking attention to constituent involvement.

More about: wealth gapcollege endowmentsmega-donorsNonprofit NewsPhilanthropy

Become a member

Support independent journalism and knowledge creation for civil society. Become a member of Nonprofit Quarterly.

Members receive unlimited access to our archived and upcoming digital content. NPQ is the leading journal in the nonprofit sector written by social change experts. Gain access to our exclusive library of online courses led by thought leaders and educators providing contextualized information to help nonprofit practitioners make sense of changing conditions and improve infra-structure in their organizations.

Join Today
logo logo logo logo logo
See comments

NPQ_Winter_2022Subscribe Today
You might also like
Why Social Change Films Matter
Cyndi Suarez and Saphia Suarez
Philanthropy Must Move from Charity to Solidarity
Son Chau
Eliminating Biphobia Through Breath, Brotherhood, and the Arts
H. “Herukhuti” Sharif Williams
Using a Data-Driven Strategy to Advance Racial Equity in Grantmaking
Heather Lenz, Ariel Jordan and Catherine Smith
Protecting Nonprofits That Protect Us During Crises—and Beyond
Aisha Benson and Jen Talansky
Reimagining Philanthropy to Build a Culture of Repair
Aria Florant and Venneikia Williams

Upcoming Webinars

Group Created with Sketch.
February 23rd, 2 pm ET

Worker Power in the Social Sector

Register Now
Group Created with Sketch.
March 15th, 2 pm ET

Remaking the Economy

Caring for the Care Economy

Register Now
You might also like
Why Social Change Films Matter
Cyndi Suarez and Saphia Suarez
Philanthropy Must Move from Charity to Solidarity
Son Chau
Eliminating Biphobia Through Breath, Brotherhood, and the...
H. “Herukhuti” Sharif Williams

Like what you see?

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

See our newsletters

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

Independent & in your mailbox.

Subscribe today and get a full year of NPQ for just $59.

subscribe
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Copyright
  • Careers

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.