The Endowment Challenge - The Chronicle of … Endowment Challenge ... Wealth Management | Asset...

The Endowment Challenge2012 is poised to be the second year in a row with lackluster investment results,

a new Chronicle study finds—putting many nonprofits in a rough spot

Featured Advertising Sponsor:

the chronicle of philanthropy

Let us take the burden off your staff so they can concentrate on what really matters: your mission. Northern Trust’sFoundation & Institutional Advisors is a dedicated practice with over 120 years of experience working with a wide variety of nonprofit organizations. Our experts offer philanthropic advice as well as perspectives on donor trends, attitudes and behaviors. To learn more or to schedule a meeting, call 866-803-5857 or visit northerntrust.com/FIA.

Wealth Management | Asset Management | Asset Servicing

© Northern Trust Corporation. There are risks involved in investing, including possible loss of principal. There is no guarantee that the investment objectives of any fund or strategy will be met. Risk controls and asset allocation models do not promise any level of performance or guarantee against loss of principal.

Whatever yourmission, ours is tohelp you thrive.

ntNA1224_CP_8.25x10.75.indd 1 11/14/12 12:32 PM


Endowments at the nation’s char-ities and foundations are on pace for a second year in a row

of lackluster investment returns in 2012, according to a new Chronicle survey.

The survey of 268 organizations that reported two years of data found that endowments recorded a median return on investment of 5 percent in 2011 and are seeing a similar rate of return this year, compared with a 12-percent gain in 2010.

The modest gains aren’t enough to recover the steep losses many non-profits incurred during the depths of the recession. For the 181 groups that have reported five years of data, en-dowment values are 14.9 percent lower than in 2007 and 3 percent be-low 2008 levels, the recession’s first full year.

The losses are taking a toll on

nonprofit leaders and board members.“If you go from 2008 until now, it

hasn’t been a very fun time to be on an investment committee” of a non-profit board, said Ron Klotter,

director of Midwest consulting at R.V. Kuhns & Associates, in Port-land, Ore., which advises nonprofits. “It’s been incredibly volatile. Nothing you’ve done has worked. It has added to the fiduciary fatigue.”

Still, nonprofits are pressing ahead with new approaches. Among them:

n Reduce spending, opting to use less money from endowment funds for annual expenses.

n Turn to donors to add money to make up for losses, an especially popular approach at organizations that only recently started their endowments.

n Seek out alternative investments, such as hedge funds, in the hope of generating bigger returns.

No matter what strategy groups are trying, timing made a big differ-ence as the markets were so volatile in 2011.

Groups whose fiscal years ended December 31 had flat growth on their investments, The Chronicle study found, while those with fiscal years ending June 30 reported median 17-percent gains.

Those results mirrored the wid-er stock market, which saw similar swings. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index finished 2011 flat from 2010 but jumped 28 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011.

Spending LessMany organizations with estab-

lished endowments are facing three choices about how to manage those

Nonprofit Endowment Returns Still Sluggish in 2012, Survey FindsBy Doug Donovan and Marisa López-Rivera

“It hasn’t been a fun time to be on an investment committee. Nothing you’ve done has worked. It has added to fiduciary fatigue.”

habitat for humanity

Habitat for Humanity International created an endowment to help it attract more planned and long-term gifts. The endowment, which now nears $3-million in assets, earned gains of 49.5 percent in 2011.


funds to support annual operations, says Bruce Myers, a managing part-ner at Cambridge Associates, a Bos-ton endowment adviser:

n Invest in riskier portfolios to try to support existing spending levels.

n Stick with the current low- peforming strategies and accept an eroded endowment.

n Reduce spending rates, which would mean cutting programs or grants or finding other revenue sources.

“They all have pain associated with them,” Mr. Myers said. “You have to do the hard work of thinking through

the different options for your institu-tion and choosing your pain.”

The Dayton Foundation, in Ohio, has chosen to continue limiting its spending to preserve the value of its investment over the longer term, says Michael Parks, its president.

The foundation, which has seen three years of negative returns and two years of gains during the past five years, decided this year to maintain its 4-percent spending rate to protect the value of its $330-million endowment rather than returning to its previous practice of taking 5 percent.

“Most distribution policies are trending downward,” Mr. Parks said. “We’re comfortable with 4 percent. We’re not looking at an increase in the near future.”

Other organizations are following a similar path. A recent Commonfund Institute survey showed that endow-ment spending rates declined from 5.8 percent in 2010 to 5.5 percent last year.

Crista Ministries, in Seattle, made a similar decision with its $5.4-mil-lion endowment, when its board voted in 2010 to reduce its spending from 5 percent to 4 percent, said Mark Crozet, vice president for fund development.

Mr. Crozet says the organization is not doing much to seek gifts to bolster the endowment.

“We will accommodate donors if they want to donate to it,” he added. “But our lead fundraising is focused on current activities.”

Raising More MoneyCoastal Maine Botanical Gardens,

in Boothbay, has taken a different approach, opting to ask its donors to help it increase the value of its endowment.

The organization established its en-dowment in 2007, the year it opened its 248-acre public garden. At the time, the Maine Community Founda-tion, which manages the fund, recom-mended a 5-percent spending rate.

But as the financial crisis ate into returns, the foundation lowered the spending rate to between 2.5 per-cent and today’s 4 percent, said Liana Kingsbury, senior foundation officer at the Maine Community Foundation. The botanical group did not spend anything in that first year of 2008 since fundraising was slow.

Dorothy Freeman, the botanical group’s philanthropy director, said her group initially hoped to raise $5-million for the fund within five years.

The endowment, which stood at $2.5-million last year, is now closer to $3-million thanks to a $24.5-million capital campaign.

“It has been a struggle,” Ms. Free-man said of efforts to start the endowment just as the recession was beginning.

The environment has never been more challenging for nonprofits. Northern Trust’s Foundation & Institutional Advisors is a dedicated practice serving endowments, foundations and nonprofits through consultative investment management, asset servicing and fiduciary services. Our investment advice is driven by your goals. Accountability is defined, conflicts of interest managed and your interests come first. For more information, call Kendall Kay at 866-803-5857 or visit northerntrust.com/FIA.



Nonprofits need investment expertise more than ever. Which makes it the perfect time to talk with us.

Nonprofits need investment expertise more than ever. Which makes it the perfect time to talk with us.


Habitat for Humanity International is also actively seeking donations to support the growth of its young en-dowment, which was created in 2009 in response to requests by several do-nors who wanted to make long-term gifts to the organization. Before those donor inquiries, Habitat had never had an endowment.

“We ran the risk of not winning the gifts without an endowment,” said Robert Schmidt, senior director for planned giving at Habitat. “We didn’t have that tool, so I couldn’t go to planned-giving donors. That was the fear that motivated it.”

The gifts’ timing, which came dur-ing the height of the financial crisis, helped the 35-year-old group realize that endowments could help it “sus-tain programs throughout economic downturns,” Mr. Schmidt wrote in a newsletter appeal for endowment gifts that carried the headline “Serving families far into the future.”

In the first year, Habitat spent nothing from its $1.2-million endow-ment, which gained 49.5 percent in 2011 from a mix of stocks and bonds.

Habitat has set a flexible spending rate for the fund of 3 percent to 6 per-cent, which allows the group to adjust to how well its investments are doing, Mr. Schmidt says.

The Muscular Dystrophy Associa-tion started its endowment in 2010 with a $75,000 cash gift from Glen Guttormsen, a former university busi-ness administrator from Medford, Ore., to finance research into Duch-enne muscular dystrophy, the dis-ease that claimed Mr. Guttormsen’s 5-year-old son.

The organization initially resisted the idea.

“The resistance surrounded the concept that we should spend our money on our mission now and not lay up money for the future,” said Richard Brown, the association’s vice president

for legacy gifts. “Our donors expect us to find cures and treatments.”

The organization ultimately decid-ed to create the fund, but with a con-servative approach. The endowment will not distribute any money until it reaches $500,000.

Once the spending is begun, how-ever, 85 percent of whatever the fund earns will be distributed and the rest invested back into the principal. From the initial cash gift and further mon-ey from annuities, the fund currently stands at $225,000.

Alternative InvestmentsMany groups with large, estab-

lished endowments are attempting to find better returns by investing less in traditional stocks and bonds and more in “alternatives” such as hedge funds, private equity, venture capital, and real estate.

Many groups that relied on this strategy—known as the Yale model because of the university’s success with such assets—took a big hit in 2009 and 2010, when many alterna-tive investments posted significant losses.

But investments rebounded in 2011.Groups with $1-billion or more in-

vested a median of 44.3 percent of their endowments into alternative investments. By contrast, organiza-tions with endowments of less than $100-million invested a median of 21 percent of their endowments into al-ternatives.

The riskier strategy paid off for the larger groups: Groups with endow-ments valued at more than $1-billion posted median returns of 13.6 percent in 2011, The Chronicle found.

But while larger groups have the assets to hire the best hedge-fund and private-equity managers, groups with small endowments with fewer resources should avoid the high-re-turn allure of riskier alternative in-vestments.

“If you don’t think you can manage them correctly, you shouldn’t be doing them,” said John Griswold, executive director of the Commonfund Institute, a think tank associated with a fund that manages nonprofit endowments.

Volunteer committees that meet quarterly to supervise portfolios in volatile markets are struggling to re-act appropriately to fast-changing

economic conditions, Mr. Griswold said. Many end up hiring outsiders to manage investments.

“It’s a much more complex world than it was 10 years ago,” he said. “That’s what led to the whole out-sourcing movement that has gained steam since the fiscal crisis, which ex-posed the weaknesses of having a vol-unteer committee meeting quarterly.”

It took the Associated: Jewish Com-munity Federation of Baltimore three years to make up the losses it suffered due largely to the 2008 implosion of one of its hedge-fund managers, Sat-ellite Asset Management.

The endowment’s value dropped 5 percent in 2008, from $483-million to $459-million. It fell another 23 percent in 2009.

“It was painful,” said Michael Dye, vice president at the Associated. “We lost a lot of money and spent the past three years building back.”

The group ultimately decided to stick with its remaining managers and its spending rates.

And it has increased its allocation in alternative investments over five years.

Mr. Dye says the federation ben-efited from its willingness to give the investment managers time to make their strategy work. In 2011, the market value of the endowment grew 20 percent from 2010.

But 2012 has been a tougher year, and the market value has dropped 4.5 percent. All funds can expect such volatility, say experts.

“We’ve been riding this roller coaster in the market,” said Mr. My-ers. “I don’t think any of us has been through anything like this before.”

Emily Gipple and Emma Carew Grovum contributed to this article.

“It was painful. We lost a lot of money and spent the past three years building back.”

A health charity initially resisted the idea of setting up an endowment: “Our donors expect us to find cures and treatments.”


The Kellogg Foundation is putting endowment dollars to work for its mission with a $5.8-million investment in Revolution Foods, a company that sells healthy school lunches.

The number of foundations mak-ing investments that seek both financial and social returns is

growing significantly as grant mak-ers look for ways to do more good with fewer resources.

Still smarting from hits to their en-dowments, some grant makers are at-tracted to the prospect of making low-interest loans to nonprofits. Not only do they earn a little money with each loan, but they get the money back to give to another nonprofit cause. Other foundations see mission-related in-vestments as a tool that lets them do things they can’t do with grants, like invest in businesses that promote a social mission.

“When the market tanked, our as-sets became smaller, so there was less to work with,” says Tina Castro, di-rector of impact investing at the Cali-fornia Endowment. “But rather than pulling back at that point, it was all the more important to think how we

could use more of our resources to im-pact our mission.”

Discussion about impact investing has moved from moral concerns about the investments foundations hold to its value as a tool for furthering their charitable missions, says John Gold-stein, managing director of Imprint Capital Advisors, which specializes in social investing.

“It’s not about investing in a way that lets them sleep better at night,” he says. “It’s actually about improving their core business of philanthropy.”

High ReturnsIn the last four years, the Califor-

nia Endowment has moved $150-mil-lion—roughly 5 percent of its $3-bil-lion in assets—into investments that seek to make a difference and deliver a financial return. A big selling point for the grant maker is the opportunity to attract money from other sources to support the causes it cares about.

Last year the foundation created the California FreshWorks Fund to increase access to healthy, low-cost food in poor neighborhoods by provid-ing financing for new grocery stores and farmers’ markets. The loan fund has so far raised $272-million, includ-ing a $3-million grant and $30-mil-lion loan from the foundation.

The loan fund is divided into three blocks of money. The first layer, made up of grant dollars from the endow-ment and from the JPMor gan Chase Foundation and NCB Capital Im-pact, will be the first to absorb losses if any of the loans from the fund fail. The second layer, which includes the California Endowment’s $30-million investment, would be the next to ab-sorb losses. By creating that financial cushion, the endowment was able to attract capital from financial institu-tions, such as Bank of America and Morgan Stanley, to the third, most secure layer of the deal.

Impact Investing Grows More Popular as a Tool for Grant Makers to Do GoodBy Nicole Wallace


Looking for ways to enhance your planned giving efforts? Northern Trust’s Foundation & Institutional Advisors has over 120 years of experience working with a wide variety of nonprofit organizations. Our dedicated Planned Giving Group offers a fresh perspective along with services including tax preparation, accounting and beneficiary distributions. To learn more or to schedule a meeting, call 866-803-5857 or visit northerntrust.com/FIA.



When donors sharethe wealth, let us share our wealth of expertise.

When donors share the wealth, let us share our wealth of expertise.

Says Ms. Castro: “By taking on a little bit more risk and therefore re-quiring a little bit of extra return, we made the whole puzzle work.”

Two Bottom LinesWhether impact investments can

deliver the same financial returns as traditional portfolios is still up for de-bate.

The W.K. Kellogg Foundation looks for investments that are closely re-lated to its mission of helping vulner-able kids and families—and that have the potential to provide market-rate financial returns, based on asset class and risk. Over the last two years, its $78-million in impact investments in the United States had a 4.2-percent rate of return, hitting the 4- to 6-per-cent goal the foundation had set.

When the foundation first looked for potential investments, it found very few funds or fund managers focused on investments that aid vulnerable kids. So Kellogg did something fel-low grant makers had said was too risky: It made direct investments in companies. The foundation has made five such investments to date, includ-ing $5.8-million in Revolution Foods, which sells healthy school lunches to school districts in poverty-ridden re-gions, and $4.6-million in HappyFam-ily, a business that makes organic baby food.

“If you’re driven by two bottom lines and a strong sense of mission, I don’t know how you cannot do direct in-vesting,” says Tony Berkley, the foun-dation’s director of mission-driven investing. “What we’ve seen in our portfolio is that the directs have per-formed well,” he says. “And they cer-tainly have a bigger social impact.”

Investing directly in companies has also garnered an unexpected “learn-ing return,” says Mr. Berkley. Build-ing relationships with entrepreneurs whose companies work in the schools or the food industry has helped Kel-logg better understand those sys-tems and how to influence them. He says the knowledge coming out of the fund’s impact investing is starting to shape its grant making and policy work but that Kellogg is still strug-gling to make full use of it.

“Those of us who do the work most intensely on a daily basis get the most learning return,” says Mr. Berkley.

“What we haven’t figured out how to do is quantify it and share it effectively.”

Recycling MoneyFor the Greater Cincinnati Founda-

tion, impact investing is another way to get money into the community for

important projects while preserving its endowment.

“When you make a grant, it’s guar-anteed that you’ll never get a return on investment,” says Kathy Merchant, the foundation’s chief executive. “The money leaves, and it does what it’s supposed to do for a social return, but there’s no opportunity to recycle money.“

Since 2008, the foundation has made 10 impact investments, most of them low-interest loans to nonprofit organizations. For example, the foun-dation loaned $500,000 to the Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance, which the organization used to make

“When you make a grant... the money leaves...but there’s no opportunity to recycle money.”


affordable loans to consumers to make their homes more energy- efficient.

A little more than a year ago, the Greater Cincinnati Foundation gave people who hold donor-advised funds at the organization the opportunity to invest a portion of the money in the impact investments. So far, most of the 15 donors who have done so have been longtime supporters of the com-munity foundation, some of them el-derly, but it hopes that, over time, the new option will help attract younger donors. Ms. Merchant says it’s already become an important part of the con-versations she has with potential sup-porters ages 35 to 60.

Fueling PilotsSome foundations turn to impact

investing to advance specific parts of their mission. The California Health-

Care Foundation turned to investing after making grants to support new ideas to improve health care for peo-ple who are poor or uninsured or who live in rural areas.

“We had been doing a lot of interest-ing pilots,” says Margaret Laws, di-rector of the foundation’s Innovations for the Underserved program. “But we realized that they were not going to naturally go to scale; that they would be terrific pilots, but that as soon as the grant money was gone, many of them would disappear.”

So in 2010 the foundation started a $10-million fund to invest in com-panies that help people who have a hard time gaining access to health care. Among the foundation’s first in-vestments: $249,500 in Asthmapolis, which developed a device that records when and where people with asthma use their emergency inhalers, and

$240,000 in Direct Dermatology, a company that provides remote dermatology consultations.

Over time, impact investing will become a standard part of foun-dation operations, predicts Cynthia Muller, director of impact investing at Arabella Advisors, a firm that guides philanthropists.

“I’m not saying program officers are all going to become financial wiz-ards,” she says. “But when they look at a project, they will say, ‘What will best serve this project? Would it be a grant or would it be a loan or some other type of investment?’ ”

The bad economy persuaded many charities that they need-ed to bolster their endowments

so they would always have a financial cushion for tough times.

But for many donors that argument is a tough sell, so a growing number of nonprofits are finding ways to make endowment gifts more attractive.

“Donors are not as interested in en-dowments as they used to be,” says Dianne Johnson, president of Endow-ment Builders, a fundraising consult-ing firm that works with small to me-dium-size nonprofits in the Midwest. “They think it is too long a payoff and too far out. They think the nonprofit might not be there.”

Donors often feel they can get a bet-ter return than a charity can, she says, so more and more people are setting aside money in donor-advised funds that allow them to get a

charitable deduction upfront and have some say over how the money they set aside is invested.

“The donor is not just going to give it to you to invest like you want,” says Ms. Johnson. “They will hold onto it and manage it and negotiate more with you over how you use the funds. The recession deepened this tendency.”

New ConditionsOther fundraising experts who ad-

vise large institutions say that even donors who are willing to support endowments are getting more de-manding. Edith Falk, head of the Campbell & Company consulting firm, says donors are increasingly at-taching conditions on how their mon-ey will be invested and spent.

She says that some entrepreneurs and other wealthy people want to set

up “quasi endowments” in which they control how their funds are invested and require charities to spend all of the money, including the principal, by a certain time.

“We are seeing more creative twists, simply because people strug-gle with the notion that 95 percent of their funds just sit there,” says Ms. Falk. “They want to see the money put to more productive use.”

Nonetheless, she says, donors who have long supported an institution may be willing to make a traditional endowment gift by leaving a bequest.

Among the beneficiaries of a donor who took that approach is the Hun-tington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. After more than 20 years of giving regularly to the in-stitution, the arts advocate Frances Lasker Brody left a bequest worth at least $100-million. That donation

Charities in Search of Endowment Gifts Use Creative Strategies to Lure DonorsBy Holly Hall


increased the Huntington’s endow-ment by 73 percent, the biggest jump of any endowment in The Chronicle’s study of 273 organizations.

Some nonprofits are also persuad-ing people who leave endowment gifts in their wills to provide an annual amount equal to what the endowment would earn if it were set up in the do-nor’s lifetime, says Kathryn Miree, a Birmingham, Ala., lawyer who ad-vises charities. Ms. Miree says she recently worked with a university do-nor who started providing $50,000 ev-ery year for a music scholarship, even though the institution won’t receive the woman’s much-larger endowment gift until her death.

Other institutions are moving away from the tradition of taking a very small amount from the endowment each year and investing the rest. For example, universities are offering to take money from their own coffers to match the interest earned on an en-dowed gift.

“Let’s say they give us $1-million and the payout is 5 percent, which is $50,000,” says Curt Simic, presi-dent emeritus at the Indiana Univer-sity Foundation, in Bloomington. “We match the payouts. This is an enor-mous incentive.”

With some undergraduate scholar-ships, for example, Mr. Simic says, the university matches the payout from the scholarship fund for four years to cover the first scholarship recipient’s college career. He says that when do-nors see the university’s willingness to spend more on today’s needs, they are more interested in giving.

If an institution can’t afford to ap-peal to donors by adding to the money earned by endowments, “look for an angel who will match payouts,” Mr. Simic advises. “This really works.”

Universities are among the most successful endowment seekers, but even charities like United Ways, which have traditionally relied on bequests to build their endowments, have started more aggressive cam-paigns in recent years to ask living donors for endowed gifts.

Some United Ways have persuaded companies to establish a United Way endowment that is named for a chief executive or other leader of the company.

United Ways in the United States now collectively have endowed funds worth $1.2-billion, says Ed John, vice president of planned giving at United Way Worldwide. That’s more than a quarter of the $4-billion raised by the charity annually.

Other United Ways have also start-ed their own big endowment drives. The Dallas United Way is now in the planning stages of a $20-million en-dowment campaign, while the United Way in Philadelphia is asking some of its most generous donors who give ev-ery year to set up multimillion-dollar endowments.

To show donors how such gifts can make a difference long into the fu-ture, United Ways explain that if they invest the money, they can use the earnings every year to replace the money a donor used to give annu-ally—and that will last long after the donor dies.

Now United Ways and other chari-ties struggling in the downturn will need to find more donors who are in-terested in investing for the long haul.

Suzanne Sataline contributed to this report.

Let us take the burden off your staff so they can concentrate on what really matters: your mission. Northern Trust’s Foundation & Institutional Advisors is a dedicated practice with over 120 years of experience working with a wide variety of nonprofit organizations. Our experts offer philanthropic advice as well as perspectives on donor trends, attitudes and behaviors. To learn more or to schedule a meeting, call 866-803-5857 or visit northerntrust.com/FIA.




Let us take the burden off your staff so they can concentrate on what really matters: your mission. Northern Trust’s Foundation & Institutional Advisors is a dedicated practice with over 120 years of experience working with a wide variety of nonprofit organizations. Our experts offer philanthropic advice as well as perspectives on donor trends, attitudes and behaviors. To learn more or to schedule a meeting, call 866-803-5857 or visit northerntrust.com/FIA.





Pacific Northwest Ballet

pacific northwest ballet angela sterling

Publication: PHLFilename: 2503PacificNWBalletpieColors used: 4Size: Date: 11/05/12Time: 1 pmVersion: 2

SPMDCB

EditorReporter

Other

Stocks63.0%

Alternativeinvestments15.0%

Bonds20.0%

Cash andmoney-market funds2.0%

endowment’s market value: $12.5-million

fiscal year ends: June 30

Growth in market value from 2010 to 2011: 23.5 percent

Decline from 2011 to 2012: 3.9 percent

Behind the numbers: Pacific Northwest Ballet has been relying heavily on its endow-ment to help cover a decline in donations. The organization has tapped 7 percent of its endowment value to cover its annual expenses for the past three years, compared with 5 percent before the recession. As a result, the market value of its endowment declined during the 2012 fiscal year. Its investment returns tell the tale of the volatile market: despite a 5.8 percent increase for the first six months of 2012, the returns ended down 2.5 percent for the full fiscal year.

Note: Asset-allocation figures are for 2011, to be comparable with other organizations in the study.

a church at st. labre indian school montanapictures.net

Publication: PHLFilename: 2503PacificNWBalletpieColors used: 4Size: Date: 11/05/12Time: 1 pmVersion: 1

SPMDCB

EditorReporter

Other

Stocks98.5%

Cash andmoney-market funds 1.5%

st. laBre iNDiaN schoolendowment’s market value: $17.3-million

fiscal year ends: June 30

increase in market value from 2010 to 2011: 11.6 per-cent

Decline in market value from 2011 to 2012: 5.5 percent

Behind the numbers: The Catholic high school in Ashland, Mont., invests its small endowment almost exclusively in stocks; 98.5 percent of its fund is in the market. That’s why it experienced a 25.8-percent investment loss during the 2009 fiscal year, a 23-percent re-bound in 2010, a drop again in 2011, and flat investment returns in 2012. Its flat investment returns, combined with a 4-percent payout to cover expenses, are eroding the fund's value.

Groups with small and medium-size endowments tend to have a much more conservative investment strategy than their larger counterparts.

Organizations with less than $100-million in their endowments invest-ed heavily in stocks, bonds, and cash, The Chronicle found. Larger groups were more likely to invest more of their en-dowments in hedge funds, real estate, and other riskier alternatives.

But even among small endowments, strategies vary widely. St. Labre In-dian School invests 98.5 percent of its $17.3-million endowment in stocks, while Pacific Northwest Ballet prefers a more diversified portfolio that includes 15 percent in alternative investments.

A Low-Risk Approach for Small Funds


save the chilDreN


fiscal year ends: December 31


Growth from 2011 to 2012: 5.1 percent, as of June 30

Behind the numbers: It’s been six years since the endowment’s return has grown by 10 percent or more. But it’s on pace to hit that mark in 2012, thanks largely to the strong performance of its stock investments. The organization reduced its spending rate from 5 to 4.5 percent this year.

the hospital for special surgery

david goldman/the new york times/

redux

hosPital for sPecial surGery




Growth from 2011 to 2012: 10.2 percent as of August 31

Behind the numbers: The financial cri-sis hit the hospital’s endowment hard, causing it to drop 27 percent in value in 2008 compared with 2007.

a full recovery: The hospital’s endow-ment has since grown 62 percent, from a low of $69.6-million in 2008, after adjusting for inflation. An empha-sis on alternative investments helped the hospital post strong results in 2012.

With a heavy emphasis on alternative investments, the endowment of the Hos-pital for Special Surgery has grown by 62 percent since 2008, the year it took a major hit.

Save the Children, which has a more balanced portfolio that is heavily weight-ed toward stocks and bonds, has not been subject to the same big swings.

How 2 Strategies Worked: Stocks, Alternatives, Uneven Rewards

Publication: PHLFilename: 2503HospitalSSpieColors used: 4Size: Date: 11/05/12Time: 1 pmVersion: 2

SPMDCB

EditorReporter

Other

Alternative investments45.0%

Bonds4.0%

Stocks40.0%

Cash andmoney-marketfunds11.0%

Publication: PHLFilename: 2503SavetheChildrenpieColors used: 4Size: Date: 11/05/12Time: 1 pmVersion: 2

SPMDCB

EditorReporter

Other

Stocks40.3%

Alternativeinvestments22.1%

Other13.2%

Bonds15.6%


save the children responds in italy elisabetta baracchi/epa/newscom


NorthwesterN uNiversity

endowment’s market value: $7.04-billion

fiscal year ends: August 31

Growth in market value from 2010 to 2011: 17 percent

Growth from 2011 to 2012: 2.2 percent

Behind the numbers: Northwestern’s portfolio of stocks and bonds grew as glob-al markets rose in 2011. So, too, did its alternative investments in riskier hedge funds and private equity. That strategy led to lower returns in the 2012 fiscal year, as alternative investments fared less well.

a hewlett education program in uganda

dana schmidt/hewlett foundation

william aND flora hewlett fouNDatioNendowment’s market value: $7.25-billion as of December 31


Decline in market value from 2010 to 2011: 1.2 percent

Growth from 2011 to 2012: 2 percent as of August 31

Behind the numbers: The foundation has an aggressive investment strat-egy. Unlike many nonprofits, which tend to rely on conservative invest-ments, less than half of the organi-zation’s fund is invested in stocks, bonds, and cash. Since the onset of the financial crisis, that has been a tricky approach. The fund’s value is now 27 percent below its 2007 peak of $9.2-billion.

Managers of the nation’s largest non-profit endowments tend to take much bigger risks—and seek greater re-wards—than those who manage smaller funds.

Groups with endowments larger than $1-billion allocate a median of 44.3 per-cent of their total value in alternative investments, such as hedge funds and real estate.

But even groups with high-priced man-agers face losses during tough times. For example, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation’s $7.25-billion en-dowment has lost more than one fifth of its value since 2007.

Big Assets, High Risk

northwestern university

Publication: PHLFilename: 2503NorthwesternpieColors used: 4Size: Date: 11/05/12Time: 1 pmVersion: 2

SPMDCB

EditorReporter

Other


Bonds10.9%

Other11.9%

Stocks24.0%


Publication: PHLFilename: 2503HewlettpieColors used: 4Size: Date: 11/05/12Time: 1 pmVersion: 1

SPMDCB

EditorReporter

Other


Stocks28.0%

Other23.0%

Bonds14.0%



total 2011 value of the 273 endowments in The Chronicle’s survey in 2011

$394-billionmedian value of those endowments

$257.1-millionmedian change in endowment value from 2010 to 2011

5.9%

Returns on Endowment Investments at 273 Charities and Foundations

Fiscal Year Ending February 28

Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation (Owings Mills, Md.)

n/a n/a n/a $1,908,671,291 n/a

Fiscal Year Ending March 31

California Endowment (Los Angeles) $3,256,518,783 – 5.3% 8/31/2012 $3,437,154,194 13.20%

Pride Foundation (Seattle) 23,477,157 – 3.1 6/30/2012 24,232,646 9

American Health Assistance Foundation (Clarksburg, Md.) 16,905,000 – 22.2 6/30/2012 21,721,079 7.1

Rochester Area Community Foundation (N.Y.) 211,221,322 – 0.8 8/31/2012 212,919,229 3.4

Hispanic Scholarship Fund (San Francisco) n/a n/a n/a 13,114,920 3.1

Meyer Memorial Trust (Portland, Ore.) 631,583,549 – 4.2 7/31/2012 659,400,173 2.8

United Way of Greater Rochester (N.Y.) 100,794,604 – 3.6 8/31/2012 104,603,292 2.1

Lincoln Park Zoological Society (Chicago) 33,853,755 – 2.6 7/31/2012 34,750,962 0.8

Arizona Community Foundation (Phoenix) 2,325,581 5.4 9/25/2012 2,206,282 – 1.7

Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Dallas) 1,325,000 8.2 3/31/2012 1,225,000 n/a

Fiscal Year Ending April 30

Community Foundation of Greater Memphis $35,958,456 – 6.1% 9/30/2012 $38,305,050 – 1.4%

Nelson Atkins Museum of Art (Kansas City, Mo.) n/a n/a n/a 292,973,678 n/a

Fiscal Year Ending May 31

United Jewish Foundation and Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit (Bloomfield Hills, Mich.)

$316,902,000 – 7.6% 5/31/2012 $342,891,000 17.40%

Inroads (St. Louis) 12,900,000 – 12.8 10/1/2012 14,800,000 – 4.0

Fiscal Year Ending June 30

Camp Fire USA (Kansas City, Mo.) $14,914 – 32.0% 6/30/2012 $21,925 29.00%

Duke University (Durham, N.C.) n/a n/a n/a 5,747,377,000 24.5

The Associated: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore 463,829,735 – 4.5 6/30/2012 485,432,427 24.4

recent estimated market value

Percentage change from previous year

Date of estimate 2011 market value

2011 return on endowmentinvestments

n/a Not available.

Note: The percentage change from the previous year compares endowment values for 2011 to the market value to date provided by the organizations. For groups that are just partially through the 2012 year—or that gave The Chronicle figures that include some of 2013—this is not a year-to-year comparison.


median return on investment in 2011 (based on 256 organizations)

5%median return on investment for groups whose fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

0median return on investment for groups with other fiscal-year-end dates

17%


Fiscal Year Ending June 30 (continued)

University of Virginia (Charlottesville) $5,430,017,097 1.60% 6/30/2012 $5,346,502,216 24.30%

Indiana University and Foundation (Bloomington) 1,576,600,000 0.1 6/30/2012 1,574,800,000 24.1

Museum of Fine Arts, Houston 992,925,043 – 1.8 6/30/2012 1,011,086,744 24

Rotary Foundation of Rotary International (Evanston, Ill.) n/a n/a n/a 228,728,336 24

American Bible Society (New York) n/a n/a n/a 348,864,480 23.9

Art Institute of Chicago n/a n/a n/a 837,797,000 23.7

Pacific Northwest Ballet (Seattle) 12,072,368 – 3.9 6/30/2012 12,564,140 23.7

Purdue University at West Lafayette (Ind.) 1,916,967,796 – 4.2 6/30/2012 2,001,600,856 23.7

Orange County Community Foundation (Irvine, Calif.) 61,357,000 2.5 6/30/2012 59,863,326 23.3

San Diego Foundation n/a n/a n/a 294,359,000 22.9

Grinnell College (Iowa) 1,383,856,129 – 7.8 6/30/2012 1,500,219,483 22.8

Moody Bible Institute (Chicago) 32,404,843 9.7 6/30/2012 29,552,476 22.7

Dominican University (River Forest, Ill.) 21,213,000 – 4.4 6/30/2012 22,190,000 22.6

University of Southern California (Los Angeles) 3,490,000,000 – 0.9 6/30/2012 3,520,000,000 22.4

Houston Ballet 54,632,725 – 0.3 8/31/2012 54,800,872 22.3

Dayton Foundation (Ohio) 324,400,000 – 1.7 6/30/2012 330,162,061 22.1

Princeton University (N.J.) 17,000,000,000 – 0.6 6/30/2012 17,100,000,000 21.9

United Way of Central and Northeastern Connecticut (Hartford)

14,327,005 – 4.9 6/30/2012 15,061,119 21.9

Yale University (New Haven, Conn.) n/a n/a n/a 19,374,000,000 21.9

San Francisco Foundation 619,305,000 – 6.7 6/30/2012 664,091,000 21.7

Segerstrom Center for the Arts (Costa Mesa, Calif.) 49,867,904 – 4.4 6/30/2012 52,166,948 21.7

Communities Foundation of Texas (Dallas) 196,679,313 16 6/30/2012 169,479,500 21.4

n/a Not available.







median return on investment in 2011 for groups whose endowments are worth $1-billion or more

13.6%median return on investment in 2011 for groups whose endowments are worth $500-million to $1-billion

9.6%


Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.) n/a n/a n/a 32,012,729,000 21.4

University of Illinois system (Urbana) n/a n/a n/a 1,600,435,050 21.3

St. Mark’s School of Texas (Dallas) $104,857,152 – 1.7 6/30/2012 106,674,740 21.2

American Rivers (Washington) 1,535,764 2.6 9/30/2012 1,496,883 21

Spartanburg Methodist College (S.C.) 16,172,309 – 12.1 6/30/2012 18,408,017 21

Commonwealth Fund (New York) 632,581,061 – 6.9 6/30/2012 679,409,032 20.9

Philadelphia Museum of Art 345,353,338 – 4.9 6/30/2012 363,013,624 20.9

Minnesota Medical Foundation (Minneapolis) 231,154,500 – 2.4% 9/30/2012 $236,740,022 20.70%

National Jewish Health (Denver) 109,586,000 0.1 6/30/2012 109,437,000 20.7

Washington University in St. Louis n/a n/a n/a 5,348,871,370 20.7

United Way of King County (Seattle) 137,612,006 – 5.2 6/30/2012 145,091,296 20.6

Phillips Academy (Andover, Mass.) 787,155,334 – 2.3 6/30/2012 805,549,087 20.3

Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) n/a n/a n/a 2,696,750,000 20.1

University of Minnesota Foundation (Minneapolis) 1,298,476,000 – 0.8 6/30/2012 1,308,968,000 20.1

American Heart Association (Dallas) 46,999,292 – 3.8 6/30/2012 48,857,976 20

Jewish Federation of Cleveland n/a n/a n/a 130,300,000 20

Cornell University (Ithaca, N.Y.) n/a n/a n/a 5,059,406,000 19.9

Chicago Symphony Orchestra 232,583,000 – 3.8 6/30/2012 241,655,000 19.8

Mitchell College (New London, Conn.) 6,592,000 6.3 6/30/2012 6,200,000 19.8

University of Richmond (Va.) 1,868,083,000 – 0.5 6/30/2012 1,877,193,000 19.7

Oregon Health & Science University (Portland) 440,356,659 – 3.4 8/31/2012 455,720,577 19.6

California Community Foundation (Los Angeles) 740,009,820 – 0.7 8/31/2012 745,095,702 19.5

Indianapolis Museum of Art 326,626,779 – 6.9 6/30/2012 350,696,542 19.5





n/a Not available.



median return on investment in 2011 for groups whose endowments are worth $100-million to $500-million

2.1%median return on investment in 2011 for groups whose endowments are valued at less than $100-million

4%





n/a Not available.


Christian Relief Services Charities (Alexandria, Va.) $23,218,840 0 8/31/2012 23,215,037 19.4

Elkhorn Slough Foundation (Watsonville, Calif.) 4,168,881 2.3 3/30/2012 4,076,672 19.4

American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities/ St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital (Memphis)

782,714,653 – 0.8 6/30/2012 788,633,390 19.2

The Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore) 3,114,264,000 1.2 8/31/2012 3,078,785,000 19.2

Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta) 1,608,247,917 – 0.7 6/30/2012 1,619,718,576 19.1

New Jersey Performing Arts Center (Newark) 60,802,547 – 5.4 9/30/2012 64,287,955 19.1

Greater Miami Jewish Federation 178,728,663 20 6/30/2012 148,987,927 19

United Way of Central Indiana (Indianapolis) 66,485,007 – 1.9 9/30/2012 67,748,821 19

World Wildlife Fund (Washington) 196,400,507 4.5 6/30/2012 187,912,952 19

University of Chicago 6,570,875,000 – 0.1 6/30/2012 6,575,126,000 18.9

Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland) 1,616,000,000 – 6.0 6/30/2012 1,720,000,000 18.8

Brown University (Providence, R.I.) 2,447,207,000 – 3.1 3/31/2012 2,526,113,000 18.5

Dartmouth College (Hanover, N.H.) n/a n/a n/a 3,413,406,000 18.4

Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (White Plains, N.Y.) 5,995,000 – 1.1% 6/30/2012 $6,059,994 18.40%

University of California system (Oakland) 10,800,000,000 1.4 6/30/2012 10,653,208,000 18.4

Tufts University (Medford, Mass.) n/a n/a n/a 1,403,883,000 18.3

Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens (San Marino, Calif.)

381,040,000 – 8.1 6/30/2012 414,731,000 18.2

American Humane Association (Washington) 772,069 0 6/30/2012 772,069 18

University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) n/a n/a n/a 6,582,030,000 18

Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County (West Palm Beach, Fla.)

105,672,841 – 0.2 6/30/2012 105,833,842 17.9

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge) n/a n/a n/a 9,712,628,000 17.9

Ramapo College of New Jersey (Mahwah) 12,673,981 7.1 6/30/2012 11,831,860 17.9


n/a Not available.






n/a Not available.

year-to-date median return on investments in 2012 (based on 233 groups)

4.8%share of groups that expect an investment return of 1 percent or more in 2012

73.3%share of groups that expect a negative investment return in 2012

14.8%


Jewish Museum (New York) $94,164,445 – 2.8 8/30/2012 96,847,507 17.8

WTTW/Window to the World Communications (Chicago) 27,145,456 – 3.7 6/30/2012 28,190,411 17.7

American Red Cross (Washington) 836,690,745 24.8 8/31/2012 670,361,279 17.5

Principia College (St. Louis) 593,054,303 – 12.7 6/30/2012 679,232,111 17.5

Currier Museum of Art (Manchester, N.H.) 79,134,132 – 2.5 8/31/2012 81,175,836 17.4

United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York

815,000,000 – 1.6 6/30/2012 827,982,000 17.4

Compassion International (Colorado Springs) 7,511,000 – 1.9 8/31/2012 7,654,000 17

Dental Lifeline Network (Denver) 1,799,178 6.6 6/30/2012 1,687,825 17

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art n/a n/a n/a 152,782,000 17

Jewish Federation/Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago

742,787,787 1.2 6/30/2012 733,798,243 16.7

WNET (New York) 89,070,000 – 3.6 6/30/2012 92,390,000 16.7

United Jewish Communities of MetroWest (Whippany, N.J.) 4,260,551 – 22.6 6/30/2012 5,502,390 16.3

Marymount University (Arlington, Va.) 22,956,872 – 0.5 6/30/2012 23,083,029 16

San Francisco Ballet 79,137,682 – 10.0 6/30/2012 87,928,519 15.9

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia 1,082,415,000 12.6 6/30/2012 961,436,000 15.7

Phillips Exeter Academy (N.H.) 994,385,899 1 6/30/2012 984,201,812 15.7

MCNC (Research Triangle Park, N.C.) 50,554,037 1.1 8/31/2012 50,012,644 15.5

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Foundations n/a n/a n/a 2,218,692,143 15.3

Boston Foundation n/a n/a n/a 402,515,959 15

American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science (New York)

433,199,000 – 3.0% 6/30/2012 $446,402,000 14.00%

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Los Angeles) 443,236,000 5.9 6/30/2012 418,709,000 13.8







n/a Not available.

Number of organizations that are chalking up better investment returns in 2012 than in 2011

113value of the endowment for the Bill & melinda Gates foundation, the largest fund in The Chronicle’s survey

$33.8-billionmedian percentage of endowment distributed by organizations in the chronicle’s survey

5%


Covenant House (New York) $5,475,433 5.7 6/30/2012 5,181,697 13.8

Vanderbilt University (Nashville) $3,360,036,000 – 0.4 6/30/2012 3,375,152,628 13.6

Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston 532,256,000 26.2 7/31/2012 421,706,000 13.1

Feeding America (Chicago) 10,091,000 – 6.8 6/30/2012 10,825,417 12.3

College of St. Joseph (Rutland, Vt.) 4,621,063 3.4 8/31/2012 4,471,156 12.1

Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton, N.J.) 586,038,000 – 0.1 6/30/2012 586,578,150 11.3

United States Fund for Unicef (New York) 1,572,329 0 6/30/2012 1,572,329 10.1

Scholarship America (St. Peter, Minn.) n/a n/a n/a 18,055,616 8.7

Crista Ministries (Seattle) 5,283,657 – 2.5 8/31/2012 5,416,824 8

Cedarville University (Ohio) 23,831,000 3.6 6/30/2012 23,000,000 5.9

Project Hope/People-to-People Health Foundation (Millwood, Va.)

n/a n/a n/a 4,201,579 5

Lions Clubs International Foundation (Oak Brook, Ill.) 575,458 0.5 8/31/2012 572,392 4

United Way of Southeastern Connecticut (Gales Ferry) 272,666 – 2.9 9/30/2012 280,722 4

Catholic Community Foundation (St. Paul) 72,408,588 0.2 6/3/2012 72,265,538 3.9

United Way of Miami-Dade 15,985,727 4.8 7/30/2012 15,258,886 3.6

Harvesters-the Community Food Network (Kansas City, Mo.)

235,416 – 8.9 6/30/2012 258,399 2

Union Rescue Mission (Los Angeles) 52,000 0.5 8/31/2012 51,731 1

United Way of Central Maryland (Baltimore) 12,641,911 9.1 8/31/2012 11,589,131 0.9

Leake and Watts Services (Yonkers, N.Y.) 2,444,334 0.3 6/30/2012 2,437,694 0.8

St. Labre Indian School (Ashland, Mont.) 16,309,728 – 5.5 7/31/2012 17,252,662 – 1.6

Habitat for Humanity International (Americus, Ga.) 1,358,576 11.1 6/30/2012 1,222,984 – 2.0




Percentage change from

previous year



n/a Not available.

share of groups that distribute some of their endowments to cover program costs

97%share of groups that distribute some of their endowments to cover construction costs

28%share of groups that distribute some of their endowments to cover overhead costs

50%


Direct Relief International (Santa Barbara, Calif.) $30,479,000 4.1 8/31/2012 29,274,496 – 4.9

Providence Country Day School (East Providence, R.I.) 1,271,456 – 4.5 6/30/2012 1,331,239 n/a

Saint Joseph College (West Hartford, Conn.) 21,524,000 2.3 8/31/2012 21,046,000 n/a

Surdna Foundation (New York) 810,000,000 – 6.6 8/31/2012 867,363,679 n/a

Fiscal Year Ending July 31

University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) $7,558,000,000 – 1.8% 6/30/2012 $7,700,000,000 n/a

Nashville Symphony Association 43,892,660 – 14.0 7/31/2012 51,022,843 16.90%

San Francisco Opera Association 138,822,387 – 0.1 7/31/2012 138,912,433 – 2.2

Fiscal Year Ending August 31

Stanford University (Calif.) n/a n/a n/a $16,503,000,000 22.40%

University of Texas system (Austin) n/a n/a n/a 17,148,648,861 20.3

Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.) $7,192,011,000 2.20% 8/31/2012 7,040,068,000 17.3

Boston Symphony Orchestra n/a n/a n/a 387,370,000 13.6

Emory University (Atlanta) 5,406,367,810 2.6 8/31/2012 5,267,460,208 13.6

Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago 374,000,000 0 n/a 373,934,511 11.9

Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia 199,463,439 9.9 5/31/2012 181,458,804 11.3

National Wildlife Federation (Reston, Va.) 52,934,266 – 1.6 8/31/2012 53,802,375 10.8

Ashoka (Arlington, Va.) n/a n/a n/a 21,479,467 10.2

Stern Center for Language and Learning (Williston, Vt.) 1,910,766 8.7 8/31/2012 1,758,518 8

Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County (Boca Raton, Fla.)

60,833,410 – 9.8 8/31/2012 67,407,665 4.3

W.K. Kellogg Foundation (Battle Creek, Mich.) n/a n/a n/a 7,500,000,000 n/a

Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust (Winston-Salem, N.C.) 511,573,095 – 0.4 8/31/2012 513,390,437 n/a







n/a Not available.

share of organizations in the chronicle’s survey that have outside investment managers

94%median percentage of endowment assets that were invested in stocks in 2011

46%median percentage of endowment assets that were invested in stocks among groups with funds valued at $1-billion or more in 2011

35.9%

Fiscal Year Ending August 31 (continued)

University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (Houston)

$1,057,878,148 – 0.2 8/31/2012 1,059,791,278 n/a

Fiscal Year Ending September 28

RAND Corporation (Santa Monica, Calif.) $190,000,000 6.50% 6/30/2012 $178,424,000 – 0.3%

Fiscal Year Ending September 30

World Vision (Federal Way, Wash.) $7,258,053 1.10% 7/31/2012 $7,181,748 11.50%

Carnegie Corporation of New York 2,704,000,000 6.2 8/31/2012 2,546,200,000 6.1

Texas Children’s Hospital (Houston) 115,264,117 14.6 8/31/2012 100,560,441 4.4

Erie County SPCA (Tonawanda, N.Y.) 6,357,173 8.60% 7/31/2012 $5,852,528 4.00%

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Boston) 367,500,000 4.6 6/30/2012 351,316,236 3.8

McCune Foundation (Pittsburgh) 345,372,101 – 11.4 7/31/2012 389,954,038 2.9

International Fellowships Fund (New York) 34,889,336 – 63.1 9/30/2012 94,537,077 1.7

Young Life (Colorado Springs) 43,837,710 9 8/31/2012 40,214,220 1.5

Seattle Children’s Hospital Foundation and Guild Association

538,710,000 10.8 7/31/2012 486,167,139 1.4

Ford Foundation (New York) n/a n/a n/a 10,099,098,000 1.2

International Rescue Committee (New York) 91,943,602 10.2 8/31/2012 83,441,775 0.9

Chicago Community Trust 870,000,000 8.1 9/30/2012 804,479,315 0.6

Smithsonian Institution (Washington) 1,048,800,000 8 8/30/2012 971,200,000 0.6

Children International (Kansas City, Mo.) 24,549,500 13.2 8/31/2012 21,684,311 0.5

California Institute of Technology (Pasadena) 1,839,000,000 14.2 9/30/2012 1,611,000,000 0.4

American Society for Technion-Israel Institute of Technology (New York)

220,192,707 11.8 8/31/2012 196,907,720 0.3

Cal Farley’s Boys Ranch (Amarillo, Tex.) n/a n/a n/a 13,333,695 0







n/a Not available.

Fiscal Year Ending September 30 (continued)

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (Washington)

$93,910,669 4.4 8/31/2012 89,924,646 0

Salvation Army (Alexandria, Va.) 1,809,471,132 14.4 6/30/2012 1,582,388,037 – 0.1

MAP International (Brunswick, Ga.) 3,837,903 – 0.1 9/30/2012 3,840,723 – 0.5

American Friends Service Committee (Philadelphia) 21,083,623 50.9 6/30/2012 13,974,796 – 1.0

KQED (San Francisco) 19,321,046 13 6/30/2012 17,096,328 – 2.0

American Friends of the Hebrew University (New York) 411,022,101 2.8 8/31/2012 399,931,711 – 2.4

National Constitution Center (Philadelphia) n/a n/a n/a 42,156,539 – 5.7

Nevada Public Radio (Las Vegas) 2,978,652 7.2 8/31/2012 2,777,715 n/a

Fiscal Year Ending December 31

Jim Joseph Foundation (San Francisco) n/a n/a n/a $920,762,000 15.00%

Metro United Way (Louisville, Ky.) $2,097,387 24.10% 7/31/2012 1,689,710 12

American Kidney Fund (Rockville, Md.) 183,243 3.6 8/31/2012 176,861 8.7

Robert W. Woodruff Foundation (Atlanta) 2,904,163,843 7.1 8/31/2012 2,712,479,094 8.3

M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust (Vancouver, Wash.) 800,000,000 1.8 8/31/2012 786,043,399 8

William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (Menlo Park, Calif.) 7,400,000,000 2 8/31/2012 7,257,897,000 7.3

Amon G. Carter Foundation (Fort Worth) n/a n/a n/a 497,900,763 6.8

Rasmuson Foundation (Anchorage) 502,009,916 – 11.0 3/31/2012 564,136,204 5.6

Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minn.) 1,937,100,000 4.2 6/30/2012 1,859,500,000 5.4

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Princeton, N.J.) 8,847,462,176 3.1 8/31/2012 8,583,766,969 5

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (Chicago) n/a n/a n/a 5,479,596,000 4.6

Duke Endowment (Charlotte, N.C.) 2,756,000,000 – 2.9 8/31/2012 2,837,905,170 4.5

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation (Kansas City, Mo.) 1,800,000,000 2.9 7/31/2012 1,749,000,000 3.8

Rockefeller Brothers Fund (New York) 738,763,597 1.6 7/31/2012 726,787,879 3.2

Nathan Cummings Foundation (New York) 402,814,066 0.7 6/30/2012 400,047,084 3

Institute for International Economics (Washington) 8,105,259 0.4 8/31/2012 8,071,666 3

Rockefeller Foundation (New York) n/a n/a n/a 3,448,500,000 3

Horizons Foundation (San Francisco) 4,281,012 7 8/31/2012 4,002,805 2.9







n/a Not available.

Fiscal Year Ending December 31 (continued)

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (Flint, Mich.) 2,225,000,000 3.7 9/30/2012 2,146,254,813 2.9

Muscular Dystrophy Association (Tucson) 233,403 33 8/31/2012 175,428 2.4

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (Palo Alto, Calif.) 5,600,000,000 3.7 8/31/2012 5,400,000,000 2.2

New Israel Fund (Washington) 2,267,366 – 0.5 6/30/2012 2,279,118 2.1

Conrad N. Hilton Foundation (Los Angeles) 2,106,354,725 2.5 6/30/2012 2,055,039,143 2

Houston Endowment 1,483,200,000 2 8/31/2012 1,454,000,000 2

Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan (Detroit) 364,000,000 2.6 8/31/2012 354,738,368 1.8

Heifer International Foundation (Little Rock, Ark.) 50,618,899 4.9 6/30/2012 48,268,917 1.7

Kresge Foundation (Troy, Mich.) 3,066,730,054 2.4 7/31/2012 2,995,334,414 1.7

Marguerite Casey Foundation (Seattle) n/a n/a n/a 573,552,895 1.6

Saint Paul Foundation 377,084,000 2.8 6/30/2012 366,794,000 1.1

J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation (Boise, Idaho) 584,914,254 5.2 9/30/2012 555,804,677 1

H.N. & Frances C. Berger Foundation (Palm Desert, Calif.) 480,000,000 2.1 6/30/2012 470,000,000 1

Annie E. Casey Foundation (Baltimore) 2,590,372,827 0.7 8/31/2012 2,571,683,990 0.8

United Way of Greater Cincinnati 30,996,736 4.7 6/30/2012 29,593,980 0.8

Greater New Orleans Foundation 142,772,451 1.2 6/30/2012 141,041,071 0.7

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (Missoula, Mont.) 33,006,210 310 8/31/2012 8,050,000 0.7

McKnight Foundation (Minneapolis) $1,833,916,933 1.2 6/30/2012 1,811,427,000 0.5

Clark Foundation (New York) 413,965,881 – 2.9 8/31/2012 426,468,429 0.4

Hawaii Community Foundation (Honolulu) 294,195,000 – 0.6 6/30/2012 295,885,465 0.4

Omaha Community Foundation 783,299 10.2 7/31/2012 711,025 0.4

Central Indiana Community Foundation (Indianapolis) 484,552,000 1.60% 6/30/2012 $476,785,000 0.30%

Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham (Ala.) n/a n/a n/a 132,331,294 0.3

National FFA Foundation (Indianapolis) 4,171,029 32.8 10/4/2012 3,141,460 0.2

Lumina Foundation (Indianapolis) 1,094,000,000 1.1 7/31/2012 1,081,900,000 0.1

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (N.Y.) n/a n/a n/a 272,500,000 0

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (Va.) $712,365,195 0.5 7/31/2012 709,065,492 0







n/a Not available. * Organization changed its fiscal year to end December 31. Previous data were for fiscal year ending June 30.


University of Wisconsin at Madison Foundation 1,812,056,284 2.5 6/30/2012 1,768,468,780 0

J. Bulow Campbell Foundation (Atlanta) 479,589,074 0.6 6/30/2012 476,723,704 – 0.1

Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (St. Louis) 217,082,425 1 8/31/2012 215,000,000 – 0.2

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (New York) 5,250,000,000 1.6 8/31/2012 5,165,495,000 – 0.3

Saint Luke’s Health System (Kansas City, Mo.) 35,666,500 0 n/a 35,666,017 – 0.3

Santa Barbara Foundation (Calif.) 142,291,163 2.4 6/30/2012 139,012,102 – 0.3

United Way of Central Alabama (Birminghan) 12,770,483 0.9 7/31/2012 12,656,764 – 0.3

United Way of Metropolitan Nashville 11,373,723 9.5 8/31/2012 10,382,682 – 0.3

Dallas Foundation 215,020,970 7.4 6/30/2012 200,181,693 – 0.4

Stuart Foundation (San Francisco) 435,486,021 4.7 9/18/2012 415,948,939 – 0.5

David and Lucile Packard Foundation (Los Altos, Calif.) 5,782,659,091 3.1 6/30/2012 5,608,862,265 – 0.6

Rhode Island Foundation (Providence) 593,977,878 7.2 8/31/2012 554,327,741 – 0.6

Children’s Medical Center of Dallas 68,073,518 35.9 9/30/2012 50,098,888 – 0.8

Robert R. McCormick Foundation (Chicago) 1,170,224,000 6.3 8/31/2012 1,101,147,000 – 0.8

Greater Milwaukee Foundation 552,900,000 4.7 7/31/2012 528,051,000 – 1.0

New York Community Trust n/a n/a n/a 1,868,000,000 – 1.0

Advocate Charitable Foundation (Park Ridge, Ill.) 41,670,000 60.4 6/30/2012 25,977,000 – 1.2

Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Foundation 2,362,000,000 7.7 6/30/2012 2,193,000,000 – 1.2

Save the Children (Westport, Conn.) 113,679,895 5.1 6/30/2012 108,131,799 – 1.2

Annenberg Foundation (Los Angeles) * 1,518,676,068 0.4 6/30/2012 1,513,023,460 – 1.5

Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund (San Francisco) 447,183,790 1.2 7/31/2012 442,005,450 – 1.6

Humane Society of the United States (Washington) n/a n/a n/a 26,126,376 – 1.6

Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta 1,671,582 2.8 8/30/2012 1,626,551 – 1.7

Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky (Louisville) 53,295,496 6.9 9/16/2012 49,855,096 – 1.7

Marine Toys for Tots Foundation (Triangle, Va.) 42,333,646 19.1 8/31/2012 35,536,053 – 1.7

Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust (Indianapolis) $339,622,880 2.7 7/31/2012 330,541,563 – 1.7







n/a Not available.


Hartford Foundation for Public Giving (Conn.) 734,391,628 5.5 6/30/2012 696,115,161 – 1.8

Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens (Boothbay) 2,800,000 12 6/30/2012 2,500,000 – 2.0

Community Foundation of New Jersey (Morristown) n/a n/a n/a 34,285,879 – 2.0

North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System Foundation (Great Neck, N.Y.)

36,598,489 17.7 8/31/2012 31,102,777 – 2.0

Seattle Foundation 252,121,070 4.4 9/30/2012 241,414,098 – 2.0

Pittsburgh Foundation 662,000,000 6.1 6/30/2012 624,000,000 – 2.1

Aspen Institute (Washington) 45,515,790 7.4 8/31/2012 42,398,555 – 2.2

New Hampshire Charitable Foundation (Concord) 460,000,000 4.8 6/30/2012 438,939,501 – 2.2

Sierra Club Foundation (San Francisco) 17,572,507 7.1 8/31/2012 16,401,113 – 2.3

Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation (Calif.) 84,290,000 3.6 7/31/2012 81,329,000 – 2.5

Foundation for the Carolinas (Charlotte, N.C.) 246,701,187 2.8 8/31/2012 239,934,505 – 2.6

March of Dimes Foundation (White Plains, N.Y.) n/a n/a n/a 12,680,438 – 2.6

Hospital for Special Surgery (New York) 121,227,000 10.2 8/31/2012 109,987,000 – 3.0

Erie Community Foundation (Pa.) 176,652,176 12.2 9/30/2012 157,374,726 – 3.1

Oregon Community Foundation (Portland) n/a n/a n/a 1,215,268,391 – 3.3

Silicon Valley Community Foundation (Mountain View, Calif.)

208,549,711 8.8 8/31/2012 191,681,720 – 3.3

Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation (Pittsburgh) 336,200,000 3.2 8/31/2012 325,844,301 – 3.9

Community Foundation of Jackson Hole (Wyo.) 9,926,000 – 1.9 6/30/2012 10,116,000 – 4.0

Ralph M. Parsons Foundation (Los Angeles) 342,209,637 – 0.8 6/30/2012 345,124,705 – 4.5

Champlin Foundations (Cranston, R.I.) 385,952,988 4.2 7/31/2012 370,436,603 – 5.0

F.M. Kirby Foundation (Morristown, N.J.) 400,000,000 3.2 8/31/2012 387,644,680 – 5.5

National Academy of Sciences (Washington) 363,039,326 3.1 7/31/2012 352,176,812 – 5.6

Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation (Midland, Mich.) n/a n/a n/a 376,405,821 – 8.0

May and Stanley Smith Charitable Trust (Sausalito, Calif.) 363,236,476 6.1 8/31/2012 342,453,678 – 8.4

Cross International Alliance (Pompano Beach, Fla.) n/a n/a n/a 258,246 n/a

Easter Seals (Chicago) n/a n/a n/a 286,398,549 n/a







n/a Not available.


Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Seattle) n/a n/a n/a 33,800,000,000 n/a

NRA Foundation (Fairfax, Va.) 38,654,000 4.7 4/11/2012 36,923,000 n/a

The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s report on nonprofit endowments is based on data from 273 nonprofits and foundations.

The total value of the endowments in the study was $394-billion in 2011, and includes a mix of big and small groups.

For the 268 organizations that pro-vided data for both 2010 and 2011, the median increase in endowment value from year to year was 5.9 percent.

For groups for which The Chronicle has five years of data, however, en-dowment totals are 15 percent below pre-recession levels, once figures are adjusted for inflation.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Founda-tion is the richest endowment in the

survey, valued at $33.8-billion as of December 2011.

The foundation is followed by Har-vard University at $32-billion and Yale University at $19.4-billion, both as of June 2011.

Wider SampleMore than 700 nonprofit organiza-

tions from across the United States were asked to provide data about their endowments.

To give a fuller picture of the state of nonprofit endowments, The Chron-icle this year expanded its sample to include nonprofit endowments valued below $5-million and to increase the number of endowments valued below $100-million.

This year’s survey includes more than 100 endowments valued below $100-million—30 of which are groups with endowment values below $5-million.

Endowments valued at $1-million to $5-million were chosen from informa-tion taken from the most recent 990 filings, the informational tax form nonprofits are required to file by the Internal Revenue Service.

That information supplemented en-dowment returns provided by orga-nizations on the Philanthropy 400, The Chronicle’s annual ranking of the charities that raise the most from private sources, colleges, and univer-sities that had the 50 largest endow-ments, according to the National As-sociation of College and University Business Officers and a sampling of the nation’s wealthiest grant makers.

The Chronicle’s survey was conducted by Marisa López-Rivera, with assistance from Jeffrey Bates, Peter Bolton, Brieahn J. DeMeo, Emily Gipple, and Emma Carew Grovum.

How the Survey of Endowments Was CompiledBy Marisa López-Rivera

the chronicle of Philanthropy1255 Twenty-Third Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20037(202) 466-1200Philanthropy.com

Copyright ©2012Permission is required to reprint articles from The Chronicle. Appropriate credit must be given. Articles must be reprinted in their entirety.

The Endowment Challenge - The Chronicle of … Endowment Challenge ... Wealth Management | Asset...

Documents

Transcript of The Endowment Challenge - The Chronicle of … Endowment Challenge ... Wealth Management | Asset...