printable banner

U.S. Department of State - Great Seal

U.S. Department of State

Diplomacy in Action

Philanthropy: How America Gives

Michael Remaley, Senior Vice President, Public Policy & Communications, Philanthropy New York; Neill Coleman, Vice President, Global Communications, Rockefeller Foundation; Ifran Hasan, Program Officer, Health & People with Special Needs, The New York Community Trust; and Stephanie Hochman, Citi Foundation
New York, NY
April 24, 2014

2:00 P.M. EDT


MODERATOR: Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Foreign Press Center. We’re glad you’re here. And hello to our friends in Washington who will be watching digitally.

Just real briefly, we’re very happy to have our panelists here today to talk about philanthropy in America. This is Irfan Hasan, Stephanie Hochman, Neill Coleman, and Michael Hammill Remaley. And I’m going to kind of pass the baton over to Michael, who will facilitate the conversation today with these introductions. And then once we’re done with that, we'll open it up for questions, which I will be in charge of. And for Washington, you can go to the podium. I’ll see you there and call on you.

So Michael, thanks to you so much for being here, and we’ll just let you make introductions.

MR. REMALEY: Thanks. Welcome. So I will be just kind of trying to give you an overview of philanthropy in the United States, and more specifically here in New York. My organization, Philanthropy New York, is the regional association of grant-makers for the city of New York. So there are regional associations of grant-makers in most of the large cities across America. So New York has one, the state of New Jersey has one, northern California has one – they’re all over the place.

So the – Philanthropy New York is the largest regional association of grant-makers because New York is the center for grant-making, more so than any other city, just simply because we have more companies, we have more people with wealth, and where there is wealth, there is charity. So – and Philanthropy New York is about 30 years old as an organization. It started out as an organization that basically served as a informal community for the professional staff of foundations. And so our membership continues to be mostly staffed foundations. So that means the larger foundations. And that is not the whole world of philanthropy. There – it should be noted that there are professional foundations that these organizations represent, but there – that is not the same as individual giving. So in America, lots of people give their charitable dollars individually to charitable – nonprofit organizations, but – and that segment of giving, individual personal donations from normal, average people is actually much larger than organized philanthropy.

So I’m going to talk a little bit about the dollars of – that is – are associated with organized philanthropy, that is professionalized grant-making, which sounds like a huge amount of money, but compared to individual giving and government dollars, it’s actually relatively small in the larger scheme of things.

So you see on your seats some basic information about Philanthropy New York and our members that gives you a sense of some of the dollars. So Philanthropy New York members, which includes private foundations, family foundations, corporate foundations, and other types of foundations like operating foundations – our members collectively manage $55.46 billion in assets, and last year made grants totaling over $7.24 billion. Like I said, that sounds like a lot of money, but our grant-makers are funding here in New York, they’re funding across the country, some of them are funding internationally, and $7.24 billion compared to the multi-multi-trillion dollar federal budget or even the multibillion dollar state of New York budget is – it’s actually a relatively small amount of money and does not go that far.

That said, foundations do things that government sometimes can’t do or isn’t willing to do. So nonprofits and social innovators often look to foundations to get essentially seed money for interesting and creative things that are not supported on an ongoing daily basis. So foundations do serve a very important role in the nonprofit community here in New York and around the world.

I should say in talking about New York as being – New York is home to about 9,632 foundations. So again, there’s something to be said about, like, the – what is a typical foundation and what is a large – a staffed foundation. Of those 9,000 foundations in New York state, most of them are little small family foundations that have a couple hundred thousand dollars in them and give out a few grants each year and are unstaffed. They’re often housed at like a law office or something like that.

Our members are among the largest foundations out there and usually might have a staff of one, they might have a staff of 300. Ford Foundation could have, like, hundreds of staff members around the world. So it really – they vary very much in size and shape, and foundations are just about as diverse as individual givers. Some of them go to – give to education; some of them go to international development. People do women’s rights issues. There’s no end to the types of interests, charitable interests of foundations and the variation between them.

So in the most recent year for which figures are available, which was 2011 – and a lot of these figures that I’m going to be talking about come from the Foundation Center, which has lots of – if you are interested in statistics about foundations, the Foundation Center website has amazing statistics, lots of things you can download and print. It’s So – but in the most recent year for which figures were available, New York state foundations distributed $8.2 billion. And that constituted 16.7 percent of all foundation giving across the United States.

So also in your packet, the packet that I gave for your – some kind of other overall things about our organization and what roles that we play as a regional association. I’m not going to go into all that because I want to kind of give it over to our foundation representatives here who can talk a little bit about the details of their different types of giving priorities and how they do what they do and why they do what they do. I will just say about this panel that they represent some three of the primary kinds of foundations that are out there.

So Neill represents the Rockefeller Foundation, which comes out of the private wealth of an individual family, the Rockefeller family. They have a fairly sizable asset base and are considered a private foundation. And then Citi Foundation is part of a charitable giving mission of the Citi – Citigroup banking. So those corporate foundations have a different set of motivations. They have a different way of funding and where their money comes from and, like, how often it’s replenished and all that kind of stuff. And then Irfan Hasan works for the New York Community Trust, which is another sort of foundation. Community foundations are kind of like an interesting hybrid. They often have an established corpus of funds, but they also are grant-raising organizations and people will house – like I personally have a donor advise fund at the New York Community Trust, where – so I will put in like 100,000 – I don’t personally have $100,000, but put in $100,000 and distribute grants from that $100,000 pool and the New York Community Trust is responsible for helping advise all that. But they have their own corpus with which they do grant-making from that Irfan will talk a little bit about.

So I think when people think about foundations, if they are aware of foundations at all, which most Americans actually kind of are not really very aware of – that this segment of society exists. But if they are aware of foundations at all, they’re probably most aware of the big private foundations like Ford Foundation, which is a member of ours, or Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is based in Seattle, and the Rockefeller name and the Rockefeller Foundation.

So I’m going to kick it off with Neill and ask him to talk about the very expansive and ambitious funding that you do, and take it away.

MR. COLEMAN: Okay. Thank you, Michael. Good to be here. Good afternoon, everyone. I thought I would talk just briefly about sort of what we – how we’re constructed and how we are organized, and then talk a bit more about our work and some of our areas of focus.

So the Rockefeller Foundation, we have a $4 billion endowment which, interestingly, is almost exactly the same in real terms as the original endowment when John D. Rockefeller Sr. created the foundation in 1913. So we have an investment office that works to maintain the endowment, and clearly they have done a good job of that over 100 years maintaining its value, but allowing us each year to make grants, which it’s normally around about $150 million of grant-making that we do each year.

We’re headquartered here in New York. We have an office in Nairobi, an office in Bangkok, and a conference center in Italy, so we have sort of four points across the globe. And we have about 200 employees; about 120 of them are in New York, and the rest are in the three regional offices that I mentioned.

So kind of a brief overview of our history: As I mentioned, founded by John D. Rockefeller Sr. in 1913, really one of the first large private foundations in the U.S., founded just a year after the Carnegie Corporation. Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller actually exchanged sort of several letters and conversations as they were thinking about setting up their foundations in a – really sort of the earliest large sort of globally-focused American philanthropies.

Through the period up until the Second World War, we were actually the largest donors of foreign aid, larger than the U.S. Government, with a particular focus on health and early engagement in the south of the United States around eliminating hookworm, focus on investigation of vaccines for yellow fever. After World War II, the global dynamics obviously changed. The rise of a lot of multinational organizations, the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, and our focus – still a lot of engagement around science and research, but less on the sort of direct kind of health areas that had been taken over by a lot of those global organizations. That postwar period, perhaps the most notable thing we focused on was in agriculture and a lot of work around the green revolution, pioneering new lines of seeds to feed millions more people.

And then coming up to the present day, obviously now we’re operating in an environment where there are a lot of different foundations and philanthropies. We are by no means the only and certainly not even the largest foundation. But we do still feel that we have, obviously, a hundred-year history. We have a lot of benefits that come with our name and our reputation. So we really try and use that to engage in important conversations to influence thought leaders and decision makers, to convene people together to think about pressing problems as well as our grant-making, which obviously remains the – sort of the core of our work.

So just to talk briefly about where we focus our grant-making, we have two overall sort of strategic goals that really try and respond to the disruptive but also dynamic nature of the modern world. So the first is to help people in communities build greater resilience against a lot of the shocks and stresses that are affecting people and communities. So that’s everything from storms due to climate change, health pandemics, earthquakes or natural disasters, economic stresses, poverty, and so forth.

The second goal, in complement to the resilience, is to help build more inclusive economies and really advance more shared prosperity so that the advantages and the opportunities of our dynamic world are shared as widely as possible.

So approaching those two goals, we have four areas of work. You’ll see them outlined in the brochure that’s on your chair. It’s – we have a focus on health, advancing health, with a particular engagement at the moment around advancing universal health coverage globally.

We are involved in what we call secure livelihoods, which is really economic prosperity and security. We’re doing a lot of work around youth employment. We have an initiative in Africa called Digital Jobs Africa, which is connecting disadvantaged youth in six African countries to jobs in the digital and technology sector. And we’re working on some similar youth employment grant-making here in the U.S.

Revalue ecosystems, which is really looking at, obviously, the environment but also its connection to people and how people use the environment and how we should be, particularly in an era of climate change, better adapting to that.

And then transform cities. We have been involved in the urban space for a long time, really thinking about transportation. So we’re doing work around bus rapid transit here in New York and several other cities.

And then also I mentioned our focus on resilience earlier on. That has a particular urban focus for us right now. Two pieces of work I’d give as examples. We’ve done a lot of engagement here in New York post Superstorm Sandy. Our President Judith Rodin was on Governor Cuomo’s resilience commission. We’ve been working with the federal government, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on this Rebuild by Design initiative, which has brought global groups of architects and designers to think about how to rebuild in the Sandy region but in a more resilient way, with a lot of focus on community engagement. And those ten designs, ten leading designs – Shaun Donovan, the HUD secretary, is shortly going to select the winning designs. They will receive somewhere close to $2 billion of funding from the Sandy recovery money that Congress voted for.

And this is a good example, I think, of where we see the ability of philanthropy to use its money strategically and to leverage other sources of funding. So we put $3 million in to run this competition that went out, solicited the various design and architecture firms to compete, that put together the community meetings where they could go out and really talk to the community and work out what the communities needed. That isn’t money that HUD could easily have appropriated with all the restrictions that they have on their funding. So we were able to play that role. But that $3 million has leveraged the much better spending, much smarter spending, of that $2 billion in federal disaster recovery money.

And then the other example I give on our resilience work is a more global example. Last year, on our centennial, we launched an initiative called 100 Resilient Cities, which is really helping 100 cities across the globe to become more able to prepare for, withstand, and bounce back from shocks and stresses, both natural and manmade. We selected the first 33 cities at the end of last year. We had over – nearly 400 cities apply, which is exciting, really interesting global group. So we have New York and San Francisco and LA, Boulder, Colorado, Norfolk, Virginia here in the U.S., but we also have Glasgow and Bristol in the UK. We have Rotterdam, Rio de Janeiro, Medellin, Ramallah, and Ashkelon, Israel, which is an interesting grouping. And then Bangkok and Surat and several others in Asia.

So we’re really trying to make that global. We hope the cities can learn a lot from each other. We’re going to be funding them to hire a chief resilience officer, who can really coordinate the resilience thinking across the city and across the different sectors. We’ll support them in developing a resilience strategy, and then we’re going to develop a platform that will allow them to access services that can help them implement their resilience plan.

And I think that’s another good example of how we’re sort of doing philanthropy differently. We have a lot of private sector partners who want to participate in that platform, so Swiss Re, Palantir, the technology firm, they’re going to be providing services to the cities. We’re not paying for those services. What our grant-making is doing is making that connection so that the cities can develop a plan so they know what they really need and then put them in touch, using our name and our connections, put them in touch with those private sector actors who want to engage with the cities but are not entirely sure how.

So I’ll stop there. But hopefully that kind of gives you an overview of where we work, but also some of the slightly different ways that we’re trying to approach philanthropy beyond just our grant-making.

MR. REMALEY: Great. Thank you. And before I hand it over, Stephanie Hochman from Citi Foundation, it’s coincidental that thee of you that I gathered here for this are all – you’ve all been involved in Sandy recovery in some very different and interesting ways. You outlined some of that. And New York Community Foundation had a very large group of established funders who are interested in funding Sandy research, and you had a fund that – so you might want to talk – and was very involved in philanthropy New York Sandy work, which you may want to talk about a little bit. And then Citi Foundation has been very engaged in housing for years and has been very supportive of Sandy recovery and was the lead sponsor for our half-day conference of foundations and how they could address outstanding Sandy recovery needs a year after the disaster last fall. And so we are very grateful to Citi for their support of that conference. Go ahead, Stephanie.

MS. HOCHMAN: Thank you, Michael. Thank you. It’s great to be here, so thank you for the invitation. The Citi Foundation team loves to get out and talk about the great work that we do around the world, so great to be here with you today. As Michael mentioned, we are a corporate foundation, so that means we do get our money from Citi Group, our company. We are philanthropic arm of the company, and we are a global foundation.

There are a number of corporate foundations that are endowed. I believe the majority of them actually do have endowments. We are not one of those. So we do receive our money annually form our company. We are a registered 501(c)(3) private foundation, subject of course to IRS regulations. And we give money in order to generate a positive impact in the communities where we do business. So impact is a very important word for us, and it has been, I guess, really for a very long time, but certainly since 2010. So I’ll go into that a little bit more in just a couple of minutes.

We – as Citi, we do business in 160 countries and territories around the world, and we have actually on-the-ground presence in 100 of those countries. In terms of our philanthropy, we do philanthropic giving in 87 of those countries around the world. In terms of our budget, we give away $78 million, and that’s from the Citi Foundation. We, of course, also have corporate contributions that our businesses give away to nonprofit organizations annually, and in 2013 that was just about 66 million. So if you add the 66 million and the 78 million from the foundation’s pot, that’s really the overall giving to nonprofit organizations in 2013, and likely we’ll be very similar to that in 2014.

In terms of what we look to do, we are a financial services company, so it makes sense that we are very interested in helping the economic progress of low-income individuals and communities around the world. And that’s really our core mission. We’re looking to promote economic progress and financial inclusion. We collaborate with best in class partners, so nonprofits that have the expertise in their particular areas of focus. And we have what we call the results framework, so that’s the impact I referenced earlier.

In 2010 – let me just actually go back. I’ve been at the foundation for a really long time. And we, many years ago, were giving away anywhere from 2,500 to 3,000 grants a year. We have significantly reduced that. Currently we’re giving away about 700 grants per year. And the reason that we did that is because we really want our grant-making or our grant dollars to have a significant impact on the lives of the people that we’re trying to reach through supporting the work of the nonprofit partners that we have in our communities.

Impact is really important, so for every one of those, let’s say, 700 grant applications, it’s very important that our community partner or the applicant for that grant clearly articulates the intended impact that that program they’re looking to us to fund will have on the lives of people. And I’ll get into that a little bit more when I talk about the actual focus areas within which we fund. But impact is really, really important. It’s all about generating a positive impact on the lives of – and for us, it’s low income, and that’s global.

In terms of the U.S. – and the hat that I wear at the foundation is I am the director of the U.S. local grant program, so I work with our U.S. colleagues, our Citi colleagues in markets around the U.S. in terms of their grant-making. So the dollars are coming from our foundation, but they are helping to address critical issues and needs in those local communities.

You may think that the $78 million sounds like a lot, and especially if you add it to the $66 million that our company gives out in terms of corporate contributions, but think about the number of communities that we are around the world and with which we fund. It’s really not as much as we’d like it to be, so the reason we now talk about our grant – the way we talk about our grant-making, it’s not just about the check. And actually, I’m dating myself. It’s all electronic payments now, right, no more checks. But we talk about our philanthropic efforts as more than philanthropy; it’s more than the check.

We realize the funding is really critical to our nonprofit partners, and so we’re happy to provide that, but what we try to do is back up that funding with the expertise that our employees globally have in the markets within which we do business. So we’re talking about more than philanthropy; we’re talking about getting involved on boards of directors of these nonprofit organizations. Many of them are small. Even the midsize and large-size nonprofits really need that expertise on their boards to make certain they’re in the right strategic direction, to provide all different kinds of expertise, whether it’s communications, marketing, financial expertise.

In terms of more than philanthropy – so now we’re talking about board engagement, we’re talking about volunteer engagement overall – we, as a company, strongly encourage our employees globally to get involved and volunteer with nonprofit organizations in their communities, whether it’s a one-day event or more of a long-term kind of mentoring or counseling type of approach.

We also help our nonprofit partners in terms of program development, thought leadership opportunities, communication support. And we also try to support convenings where we actually gather the experts in a particular area to talk about and try to move the needle on a particular issue that’s important in a community, whether it’s a local community, state-wide, or country-wide. So impact is really very important for us.

And so we are a staff here in New York of 23 people, and we work in 87 countries around the world. How do we do that? Well, it’s simple. We rely very much on our Citi colleagues globally. So I – as I mentioned, I head the local grant program here in the United States, so I work very closely with our Citi Group colleagues in those Citi markets around the U.S. And although the money is coming from us, it’s really important that we hear from them in terms of the very local, critical needs that those low-income folks and low-income communities are facing. And then we say: How can we help?

So we work with these – our Citi colleagues to source those best-in-class nonprofit partners for us to be able to request to solicit our support. We do not accept unsolicited proposals, so we really go out to the nonprofits that are experts in their fields that, of course, work within our focus areas. And I’ll get to that in just a minute. So that’s – within the U.S., I work very closely with my team with our Citi colleagues in those U.S. markets, and we really do the same thing on the international side. We have a group at the Citi Foundation that handles the local grant- making outside of the U.S. And each of my colleagues here in New York works very closely with our Citi colleagues on the ground in those countries who, again, are identifying the nonprofit community partners and the local needs and helping us understand how we can be helpful to help meet those needs.

In the U.S., something we do work within – that we do not work within, because there’s not such a need internationally – is the Community Reinvestment Act. I don't know if you all are familiar with that. Likely not. So back in the 1970s, the federal government passed the Community Reinvestment Act. And what that says is it mandates that banks in the U.S. that take deposits in low-income communities must give back to those low-income communities. And one of the many ways that we as Citi and many other banks do that is through our grant-making or our investing in these nonprofits in these local, low-income communities. So that’s something that’s very important to us.

So when it comes to our U.S. grant-making, whether it’s our national programs that are managed by our program officers here in New York or it’s the local programs that are managed by our local Citi colleagues in those U.S. markets, those really need to be helping to meet those CRA obligations. And it makes sense. It works for us because our main focus is on low-income communities anyway. So our grant-making is going to be helping to support those initiatives. So that’s something I just wanted to make certain that folks understood.

We at Citi have a shared – shared partnership goals, I should say. We develop a track record as a go-to source for innovative community solutions. We cultivate third-party validation by overseeing the successful execution of community initiatives. That’s something that’s very, very important to us.

Now in terms of our mission, I talked about economic progress; I talked about financial inclusion. And we really look at the Citi Foundation’s mission as one that’s complementing Citi, our company’s role as a financial services innovator by increasing financial inclusion and economic progress for low-income individuals and communities.

And when we talk about our giving, we talk about it in terms of three themes: its financial success, job opportunities – and we talked a little bit about that today – and urban innovation. And the types of investments that we make fall within three categories – direct services, which are grants that have – that support programs, that have a very direct impact on individuals or on organizations or on other nonprofit organizations. We do capacity-building investing, and that’s where we will provide a grant to one nonprofit partner in particular that’s helping to then build the internal infrastructure of that community partner so they can do better what they do in the communities within which they work.

So let’s say they need help in impact evaluation. One of the things that we heard when we rolled out our impact framework when we were really starting to look at the impact of our grant-making in 2010 was that nonprofit organizations really were just starting to look at that back then. And especially some of the smaller and mid-size organizations that we support in local communities, they really appreciated the fact that we kind of brought that to the surface. And it really helped them understand that not only is it important for them to measure the impact that their programs and initiatives are having on the people they’re serving, just to understand their impact, just as we would like to understand our impact in terms of our investing, but it’s also helping them to raise more money, right? If you’re able to tell your story in a very comprehensive way in terms of the impact you’re having, hopefully that will help them in terms of fundraising, so all very positive.

And then there’s the third investment area that we fund within, and that’s research and public policy, so more systems-change kinds of efforts that have both short and long-term results. And then we have, of course, certain focus areas within which we fund, and those are financial capability, microfinance and community development finance, enterprise development, neighborhood revitalization, and youth economic opportunities.

In terms of financial capability, that’s pretty self-explanatory. We, of course, a financial services company, so what we try to do is really help low-income people understand, through the work that we do – through supporting our nonprofit partners, we’re helping low-income individuals understand how important it is to save their money, to reduce their debt, to avoid foreclosure, and really make certain that they’re on that path to financial self-sufficiency and financial security. Also here in the U.S., something that’s very important is credit history. So many low-income folks don’t even have a credit history. So the type of work that we do support is helping to establish those credit histories, whether it’s through a credit-builder kind of loan. There are many different innovative products that are available. So we, through our support, help to support those programs through our funding. And we also look to support innovative efforts to actually create new products that are going to help serve this low-income population that is so important to us to be able to serve.

Financial capability – also one component in there that’s very important is home ownership. A home is a very critical asset, and that’s something that many folks would aspire to in terms of being a homeowner. So we support programs that provide homeownership counseling to low-income individuals so that they are on that path to actually be able to buy a home for themselves one day.

And we talked a little bit about Superstorm Sandy. We have – and thank you, Michael – we have been very active in supporting over the years, over the last how many months?

MR. REMALEY: Year and a half.

MS. HOCHMAN: Year and a half, from the time of that devastating disaster. And a lot of the foreclosure prevention work that we’ve been supporting in the New York area is very much focused on helping those families that were devastated by that horrible event.

So the next two focus areas, microfinance and community development finance and enterprise development, are very much related. The work that we do there – and this, again, is global – we help to provide support to programs that help low-income individuals who are really looking for another source of income to start a business. So what do they need? It’s really very difficult for anyone, especially a low-income person, to approach a bank now, a commercial bank, to get a loan. So we support community development financial institutions, or CDFIs, to help provide that access to capital to low-income individuals so they can start a business and help to provide for themselves and their families.

Very – and I must say that the programs that we support within that area are ones that provide the training and the technical assistance. We all know a lot would need to go into starting a business, right? You need a business plan, you need to understand the marketing efforts, the revenue, the bookkeeping, the – all the financials that go into it. So we support programs that provide that kind of technical assistance and support. And of course, nothing will happen unless you have that access to capital. So we also tried to support those programs that also provide that access to capital piece, which is critical.

And again, the enterprise development area, the third of the focus areas, very related. And within that area what we’re looking to do is support programs that provide training and technical assistance to existing small businesses in low-income communities. And our goal there is to help to expand those businesses to the point that they’re creating jobs. Job creation is a result that we’re very much focused on. And then, of course, those jobs, hopefully, will be filled by those low-income individuals in those low-income communities. So that is really all about job creation.

And our neighborhood revitalization work, the fourth focus area, is really more, at this point, U.S.-based. It’s – much of that is around predevelopment efforts around affordable housing, which is obviously very critical for low-income individuals and families. So the work that we do is we do some predevelopment efforts where we – which are activities that have come to be known as those activities that are hard to find funding for. So we’ve heard that from community development corporations, or CDS, those that work within affordable housing, that those monies are definitely hard to come by, whether it’s architectural drawings or transit-oriented development studies, environmental studies. Those are the kinds of investments that we’ll make to help a nonprofit move the needle on their affordable housing efforts. And just generally speaking, we support community development corporations and community development financial institutions to increase the flow of capital in low-income communities to spur development.

And then this last area, youth economic opportunities – very different on the U.S. side versus internationally. Within the U.S., we’re very much focused on job opportunities for young people ages 16 to 24. Also one of the major focuses that we have here in the U.S. is college success. As I mentioned, I’ve been with the foundation for many, many years, and it used to be that we were funding in a much broader range within education. We were doing pre-K through 12 education. And then we realized we really wanted to be able to measure the impact of our grant-making and we really wanted to be able to focus on a particular area within education that was really critical. And it came to be that here in the U.S. it was college success for us. So not only was it helping low-income individuals understand what they needed to do to get their kids successfully out of high school, but to get them not only into college, to enroll in post-secondary education and not drop out. So we support those programs that help not only get these students into college but those that help to support retention so they don’t leave after the first or second year of college, and ultimately get that degree, because we know how important that degree is for their ultimate success in life.

So those are the areas within which we fund. And of course, we certainly integrate environmental sustainability into much of the work that we do.

MR. REMALEY: Thank you. I mean, I think that that very thorough going into the – what your – what I think are very focused areas and very sensical (ph) for the nature of the corporation, it becomes very clear how the amount of money you have to work with – actually, it seems like a lot of money, but when you have that many things that you could be doing in communities, it’s a drop in the bucket. And those are all huge challenges in so many communities. So when you talk about millions or billions of dollars, it just doesn’t go very far, but can play a very critical role in getting things going in communities.

Thank you. Irfan, talk about (inaudible).

MR. HASAN: Great. Thank you, Michael. And thank you all for being here. I’m looking forward to this. My name is Irfan Hasan. I’m with the New York Community Trust. And as Michael alluded, we are a community foundation, and kind of heard some about private foundation, a corporate foundation, corporate giving program. And I’ll try to summarize a bit about what community foundations are, because we are somewhat strange creatures in philanthropy.

We are a basically – we are a tax-exempt charity, but not a private foundation. We’re a public foundation, a public charity. So we obviously give away money but we also raise money. The simplest way to think about a community foundation – and we are usually place-based – is a local community’s charitable endowment. So obviously, as the name implies, New York Community Trust, there’s the Boston Foundation, so on and so forth.

There are more than 730 community foundations around the country, and they vary – 730-plus. They vary in size from having endowments and assets of less than 1 million to several of us who are large and have assets of more than 1 billion. The New York Community Trust, we have assets of about 2.5 billion now.

And I’ll go through a bit about community foundations very generally and then come to the trust specifically. Last year – actually a couple of years ago, I guess, community foundations nationwide made about 4.2 billion in grants and managed about 55.6 billion in assets. So put together, we’re pretty large.

I think the key difference between private foundations and community foundations is that community foundations operate mostly two arms. We have our donor advice side, which is where living donors will establish a fund and conduct their philanthropy through us. Most often, they will give to organizations that they know and like. And kind of the advantage to them is a large tax deduction at the point of setting up the fund. And then the side of the foundation which I work on, which is the competitive grants program and kind of working with some of the easier donors, because they are dead. (Laughter.) They have left us money in their wills or through estates and charted out what they would like that – what they would like us to do with it, either in terms of particular areas or issues and so on and so forth.

And the advantage of a community foundation is that when somebody leaves something for a particular purpose, as times change, we have the legal authority to then kind of tweak it a bit to make sense on what needs to be done next. So for instance, we had a fund many years ago that was set up to provide medical equipment. When Medicaid in the 1960s started to pay for it, we could then shift it and provide some of the services that people might need with the equipment instead of then necessarily continuing to pay for equipment that the government is also paying for. So that’s sort of very general about community foundations.

Talking a bit about the trust, we are one of the largest community foundations in the country. We are 90 years old. This is our 90th year anniversary. As I said, we are about 2.5 billion in assets. Last year we gave out, between the donor advice side and our competitive grant side, about 140 million in grants. Much of it was for New York, but donors obviously can give to other organizations around the country as well.

We broadly have four areas. And because we are of the community and for the community, we cover, I think, everything under the sun. Broadly at the trust, we have an area that works on community development, the environment, a lot of the things that Stephanie talked about, sort of on housing and asset development. Two of my colleagues work in that area. We have an area around education, arts, humanity, historic preservation. If you go around New York, I think in the ’50s, it was really big where the trust was helping in renovating old buildings and a lot of the churches have this little plaque, “Renovated by the New York Community Trust.” So we kind of do stuff in a whole range of things on that.

And then we have an area of children, youth, families, social services, all the issues that I think are ever present in cities – also, I guess, rural areas as well – that are the realities of the differences between what people have, what people don’t have, so supporting everything from food to childcare to a whole range of social services.

And then my area, which is health and people with special needs, where we support everything from issues around health systems development. The U.S. compared to other countries has a very complicated and – my personal edit – somewhat dysfunctional healthcare system, and we spend a lot and don’t necessarily provide good, coordinated care, so trying to improve that. And then in particular efforts that focus in on people with special needs, so my area around people with disabilities, mental health issues, children with disabilities, the blind.

And then for everything else we have special projects, and I do some of those as well, so we have some money for animal welfare, for instance.

I think one of the key differences in community foundations, even on our side of the giving, is people get very close to their issues and leave things for very particular purposes. So for instance – and I think this is the case in health – people get very close to their disease and their challenges with it, so we have a fund which I manage which is for injured, needy, young classical ballet dancers. You can be injured, needy, old – not be eligible. You can be injured, needy, do wonderful modern dance – won’t be eligible. So we have to kind of figure out who in the community is working on those issues and until there is no longer classical dance, which there won’t be for a long time, obviously, we still have to find stuff and support those efforts. So we are a way for people to kind of continue to live their passions long after they are gone.

We are a, I’d say, a somewhat old foundation in New York in that obviously we’re 90 years old, where we have had three presidents in our 90 years, so we can kind of get the sense that when we stay and get involved with something, we stay for a while. Some of the interesting things that we’ve done where we’ve been first in terms of doing work is we established – helped establish the Visiting Nurse Service, which is the care for a lot of elderly and disabled people at home. We established for of Citymeals-on-Wheels in New York. We were one of the first foundations, because of our endowment, to give a grant for HIV/AIDS research way back in 1982 when nobody really quite knew what was happening and what this new disease was. We were very involved in the response to September 11th with creating the September 11th Fund and programming out that, and a whole range of other things.

Two quick points before we open it up to questions in the floor – from the floor. Kind of in philanthropy, again going back to big picture, I think in our communities there’s a lot of discussion around, well, what are the best ways to give? And sort of there is one approach of, well, endowment and kind of establishing something that will stay for the long term – Rockefeller Foundation, many years, has an endowment; when an issue needs to be addressed, it can then kind of respond and do stuff – versus, I’d say, probably a trend in the past 10, 15, maybe 20 years of if you have a lot of money, use it now while you’re alive to address the issues that centuries before haven’t been able to be addressed. I don’t know that there is one right answer, but I think if you think of philanthropy again in general and big picture stuff, I think that is one of the challenges and the issues that a lot of us grapple with.

And then related to that is if you have a lot of money, do you spend it out quickly? There are a lot of foundations that – the Atlantic Philanthropies, for instance, that started maybe 15 years ago and has an endowment of about 4 billion which they are spending out quickly. So just interesting conceptual issues in philanthropy.

And then I think the other very, very critical sort of big picture in philanthropy is I think as government shrinks in this country, philanthropy had already been involved as being a key player in – I’m going to be as bold to say to make the country run. And now I think there are more burdens being put on philanthropy, and that, I think, can get challenging for philanthropy, because while we like to give to important issues that make life better for – whether we’re looking locally to regionally, nationally, I don’t think any of us want to get into the business of being the ones that make a community, city, region, country run and rely on our dollars that, for the most part, whether you’re talking short-term philanthropy or spend-out endowments, et cetera, weren’t really geared for the day-to-day operations of life in cities, counties, states.

So I’ll leave it at that with Steph.

MR. REMALEY: Thank you. That was great. And it reminded me of one of the things that I was charged with talking about in the kind of overview which I forgot to talk about, which is kind of setting a little bit of a context, which is a little backwards to do now, but about the larger – some larger things in American culture, why we are – America is generally considered a more philanthropic nation than other nations in terms of just the raw amount of private giving that exists in this country. And a big part of that is, one, some cultural things around we’ve been a country that relied on nonprofits that are not government organizations and have long, since the American Revolution, lots of documented associations of private individuals coming together to address problems. So there’s a cultural part.

But we’ve also had in this country, since I think 1917 or somewhere around there, tax incentives in our tax code, the charitable deduction, that has been a very important part of why America gives more through private donations. So our tax code is set up to encourage that giving, and people get a tax deduction when they give and when they set up charitable foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, and also corporations get tax deductions and all that stuff. So it all supports that, and it is also partly why all these foundations that are set up with endowments, there are regulations about how much they have to give out every year. They have to give at least – they have to spend, I should say, not give out – they have to spend through grants and/or administration at least 5 percent of their endowment every year. But that means if – which most foundations do spend around 5 percent each year – that if their assets continue growing and they’re still spending 5 percent, if it’s growing at a decent rate, 6 to 10 to even more percent depending on how they invest, that the foundation does continue to grow and exist year after year.

And these foundations do often – we just did a program recently that Rockefeller sat – one of the Rockefeller representatives sat on that panel to kind of really debate whether or not foundations should go on in perpetuity, because there are some foundations, like Atlantic, that the founder is a living donor and believes that he wants to spend all of his money around the time he dies because he believes strongly that he wants to know where his money is going and he doesn’t want a board a hundred years later making decisions on his behalf, and some other issues that are all wrapped up in spend-down versus perpetuity.

And one of the interesting things that came out of that discussion was just the clear fact that if you are spending at a 5 percent rate every year, after 20 years you will – just the math – you will have spent as much as what you would have spent if you spent it all that first year. So after that 20 years’ time, you will – everything after that is gravy. So a hundred years later, you’ve spent four times or more, depending on inflation and things like that. You’ve spent so much more than you ever could have spent if you spent it all on that thing. So after 20 years, basically everything is extra and great extra funds going to a charitable purpose in perpetuity year after year.

Okay, so that’s kind of – we covered a lot of ground in the past hour, so I really want to open it up to questions, if you want to just kind of --

MODERATOR: Yeah. So we’ll see who has a question and we’ll bring the mike to you. Just for the sake of time, if you have a specific person to address the question to, that’s good. If you have more than one you want to answer, that’s fine, but all four probably would be too long.

QUESTION: (Inaudible). I would like to know, the tax law is changing, is better for your purpose, or is getting more tough?

MR. REMALEY: So I – in my organizations, one of those kind of philanthropic infrastructure organizations that is charged – part of our mission as an association is to advocate about the charitable deduction and stuff in Washington for our members. We have taken the official position in our organization on behalf of the philanthropic community of New York that we support maintaining the charitable deduction in its current form. So there are a couple different proposals on the table coming from both the Republican side and the President’s side. The President has suggested altering the charitable deduction so that there is a 28 percent cap on how much you – the deduction that you can take. So that would affect wealthy donors, so they get – would get less on their charitable giving dollar than they currently do, because if they’re getting taxed at a 39 percent rate, the 28 percent rate means that they would get less of a – less money back, basically.

The Republican proposal from Dave Camp, who is the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, was that he wants to put a floor on charitable deductions, a 2 percent floor on charitable deductions. So that means that on the lower end, if you are a relatively modest income person, most of us – if you make 50,000 a year, that would mean you would need to give like, I think, a thousand dollars of your income to charity to even begin to take a deduction. So – and that’s a hard thing for most people to get to, so that could have a really huge impact on charitable giving. And I will say that in terms of how private foundation giving compares to individual giving, out of the $303.1 billion of private giving in the most recent year for which there are statistics, 72 percent came from just private individual people in their individual giving; 16 percent of it came from foundations. So that gives you a kind of a sense of proportion.

QUESTION: Recently, Vice President Joe Biden was in Ukraine and he indicated that United States is going to support and also invest in Ukraine infrastructure. And Neill was talking about the economic crisis that stress – that your foundation. Have you done in the past or did you get a demand for Ukraine?

The second question is, in general, is it legal to accept foreign government grant if (inaudible) talk about also raising money as well?

And the last question: For the ethnic committees, what’s the percentage for your organizations to give for the ethnic communities or ethnic American NGOs? Thank you.

MR. COLEMAN: So should I take –

MR. REMALEY: Take the Ukraine one first because I’m – you’re probably the only one who – yeah. (Laughter.)

MR. COLEMAN: It’s a good question. There are not any of the existing cities in the first round, the first 33 cities in our 100 Resilient Cities, that are cities in Ukraine, but I’m not certain of that, and I would need to check is if any of them applied. Because we had nearly 400 cities applied, and I don’t – I honestly don’t know whether any cities from Ukraine applied. But we made the selection for the first round in December, and there weren’t any chosen in that round.

MR. REMALEY: There’s a relatively small handful of private foundations, I think, that are funding in that general part of the world. The ones that are probably most likely to be doing work are probably Soros Foundations and Carnegie Corporation but – and – at least here in New York, those are the ones I know relatively well, but I don’t know what they’re doing in Ukraine at the very moment. I suspect they’re watching and trying to find positive ways to act.

So I wanted to, like, clarify on your – the third part of your question, which was --

QUESTION: The second question was: Is it legal for the organizations to accept foreign government grant?

MR. REMALEY: So most of these organizations don’t – they are endowed foundations that do not take money, so city money comes from city, and Rockefeller is endowed, as 90 percent of the foundations out there are private foundations that are endowed from wealthy individuals.

MR. HASAN: We – I believe, just under kind of like foreign money cannot be given to its electioneering and so forth. I believe they are also restrictions in terms of coming in on the charitable side from a government per se directly to an entity that might then give out the money.

That said, clearly, there are several foreign governments that have provided resources, whether we’re talking about buildings or cultural activities in the city. But in terms of being government X gives money to organization that then can give out, I think that’s a challenge.

And then your third question about the ethnic --

QUESTION: Ethnic communities, right.

MR. HASAN: We – the trust, because we are place-based, we have done – we do a lot of work. Our focus ultimately is improving life for people in New York and obviously those who need help the most. And clearly, ethnic communities fall in that. We have operated for about 20 years something called the Fund for New Citizens, which is a collaborative where it is money from other foundations in the country and in the city and the country put money at the New York Community Trust and then jointly we make grants that focus in particularly on the needs of ethnic communities.

Most recently, we made some grants around helping when President Obama signed the DACA – Deferred Action – I can’t remember what the C-A stands for, but it was for immigrants, young immigrants who are brought here before age 8, I think, and kind of helping them gain legalization status at some level. So we made fairly significant grants to small ethnic organizations in New York to help move that process around, educate people about it and help them through that.

MODERATOR: So we’ll go to Washington for our next question.

QUESTION: Hi. Do you hear me?


QUESTION: So my name is – great. So my name is Oliver Grimm. I’m with the Austrian newspaper Die Presse. I have a question concerning the total amount of tax that people save for a year by giving to charitable foundations and organizations. Do you have an approximate figure for the money that is not going to the overall budget but is being donated?

And related to that question, what do you make of the criticism that by having a fairly generous legal scheme for – legal framework for donating money to charitable causes, America is actually depriving its own state, its democratically elected government, of the financial funds that it would need to do all the things that you then have to do because the public bodies don’t have enough money for that?

Thank you.

MR. REMALEY: Good question. And I don’t have the exact figures on the top of my head, but if you go to the website, there’s a charitable deduction issue guide that has a lot of those statistics in it.

So one of the important things to know about the charitable deduction and how it works is that for every – basically, for every 33 cents or whatever that the government gives back to people for their charitable deduction is another 66 cents that is going to a nonprofit organization. So it is based on the believe, and a fair amount of data to support – years and years of data to support the fact that when the government provides this 33 percent or, depending on the person’s – how much they pay in taxes, 39 percent or 28 percent or whatever the person is paying in taxes, that that little bit of money that the government forgoes in tax revenue generates more – 66 cents more to the nonprofit community. And that’s why it works, and that’s why it makes sense.

So it encourages private grant-making that – giving to nonprofits that – that’s a whole dollar that – somehow that whole nonprofit apparatus and charitable purpose would be all supported by the government. So by doing this at 33 cents, it’s like a whole dollar that the United States Government doesn’t have to provide. Does it make sense? So by providing that 33 percent, it generates a whole dollar – 33 cents that it pays, it generates a whole dollar from private giving. That’s how it works. It sounds complicated, but it’s not.

QUESTION: This is a question for each of the panelists. What are the criteria to measure the performance of a foundation? Either – whether or not it’s a committee foundation or a private foundation, there – are there – what criterias?

MR. REMALEY: Yeah. Again, foundations vary tremendously in how they think about impact, whether or not they actually have measures. Some foundations have said over the past couple years that we’re doing a lot of intensive evaluations and making their nonprofits that they support go through this whole process of measuring and seeing how that affected the – what the goals of the organizations were. Sometimes it would change people’s goals because they would only do what they could measure. And then it kind of made their goal – their mission a little more circumscribed. So I think people look at evaluation differently, and I want to ask each of you, because you do all, like, evaluate your grant-making in one way or the other, to say a little bit about how you go about either putting actual numbers to success or thinking about it in other terms.

MR. COLEMAN: So we have an evaluation office, relatively small but obviously important group of people, who for each of our major initiatives – we tend to group our grants as initiatives. For each initiative which may be, say, $80- or $1 million -- $80- to $100 million worth of grants over, say, a five-to-seven year period, we would do an evaluation of that initiative. And we will partner with professional organizations with expertise in that field to really look at the impact on – most specifically on people – we have a focus on poor or vulnerable people – and how did that initiative actually help to change those people’s lives.

Two additional things I would say: One is we have been developing more of a focus on making clear what the goal is for an initiative up front in terms of a sort of more numeric or measurable approach. So a good example is the initiative I mentioned briefly, Digital Jobs Africa, where we’re helping to connect disadvantaged youth in six African countries to jobs in the technology sector. And we specifically said our goal there is to impact a million lives. So we have a goal, and I think that’s important not just from an evaluation perspective but also in terms of giving a focus to the work and the grant-making.

And the other thing I would say is besides evaluation we see monitoring, ongoing monitoring, as important because you don’t want to have a seven-year initiative and you only look at the end of the initiative to see whether it succeeded and if it didn’t, whereas if you’re measuring as you go along and have some benchmarks, that helps you then be able to adjust course if necessary and redirect funding in a more beneficial and impactful way.

MS. HOCHMAN: So at the Citi Foundation, we look at this both quantitatively as well as qualitatively, right? So with the impact framework that we rolled out in 2010, we certainly have already started to roll up the actual data in terms of the impact that our grant-making is having on the individuals and on the communities that these programs that we’re supporting are serving. So one very easy example, foreclosure prevention, we’re really hoping to save low-income individuals’ homes from foreclosure. So how many homes were saved from foreclosure? That’s really clear and very easy to understand. So that’s the kind of information in terms of the quantitative approach that we’re trying to roll up, and we’re starting to roll up. And we’re starting to do that now, since we really just rolled it out in 2010.

With every grant that we award, we require the nonprofit organization to submit two different progress reports to us. One is at this – we have a 12-month grant period, right? So at the six-month part – stage, they’re asked to submit an interim report. So we have a good understanding in terms of how they are doing in terms of their anticipated results that they’re trying to achieve by the end of that grant period. And so we do that for a number of reasons. One is it’s our money, and we have shareholders, we have stakeholders. We need to be accountable. And so we want to make certain that the money is being used the way it was intended to be used, and make certain that that nonprofit is on the way to success. And if they’re not, for any reason, at that six-month mark, it’s an opportunity for us or for our CitiGroup colleagues in those markets, the ones that are managing those relationships with these nonprofit partners, to really connect with that partner and help them. We understand you’re having some trouble; how can we help you get back on the path to success? So that’s something that we really feel very strongly about, and we get some really great feedback from our nonprofit partners because we really do care, not only to get our numbers and understand what kind of impact our grant-making is having, but we want them to be successful in terms of their own missions.

We also think about the meetings and convening’s that we as Citi are invited to. That’s a third-party validation. All of the work that we’ve been doing in terms of financial capability, we’ve been invited to speak, to present, to really be at these important tables on this topic. So that’s something that we feel really good about, and we’re really very honored, and that’s one way for us to know how successful that we are as a foundation and as a company in terms of addressing these really critical community needs.

And – yeah. I think that’s it.

MR. HASAN: Just really quickly, I think – evaluation, I think, is one of the things where, when I started 15 years ago at the trust, somebody said something which I didn’t think was that profound initially but I think applies for evaluation as well as how do foundations give out, but it’s sort of if you know one foundation, you know one foundation. And I know it kind of – everybody does stuff a little differently, but I think it – for the evaluation bit, I think all of us, because we are responsible, that’s the one where I think it might be similar, where you can – that you know more of than just one foundation. We all are responsible to some stakeholder, whether it’s our shareholders, our board, the community that has established funds with us. So we obviously, like Citi, do very similar things in tracking with reports and ask people to give us measurable outcomes and so on.

I think for us the evaluations – and we don’t have a separate evaluation unit; it’s all sort of done with the people who are making the grants. But for us, I think the evaluation and, again, a bit of uniqueness on community foundations is we can support projects that include lobbying and advocacy and lobbying by the IRS standards of there is a bill which is going to do X, Y, Z, and it’s good for whatever; therefore, we will support it. So we often measure our success and a lot of our grants are really focused on changing the system.

So an example: Several years ago, made a grant which looked at changing the law in New York for health insurance companies to require them to cover the same amount of care that they provide for physical healthcare and mental healthcare, the parity law. Our evaluation of that was ultimately that New York State passed that and requires if you have insurance here to cover both physical care – if they pay $2,000 for physical care, they have to pay $2,000 for mental healthcare. So that sort of was our evaluation, if you wish. It didn’t happen during the period of the grant. It happened three years later. So, often we end up evaluating far after the effort.

MODERATOR: Okay, we’re getting close to the 90-minute mark. We’ll take a question in Washington, maybe one more in New York.

QUESTION: Hello. Can you hear me?

MODERATOR: Yes, I can hear you.

QUESTION: Hello. Inga Czerny from the Polish Press Agency. I would like you to address how that philanthropy has changed in the U.S for the last 10, 20 years, taking into account that there are more and more poor people and the richest American are becoming extremely rich, and at the same time, as one of the panelists said, the capacity of the government shrinking. Thank you.

MR. REMALEY: Well, you have in your question identified some of the – I’d say two of the three key factors over the past 10 years. One that you did not identify is just the kind of – the grant-making is largely linked to the stock market because all these organizations hold their assets in stocks, and how much they give is related to a three-year rolling basis of their assets – asset base. So if their stock market goes down, there is less foundation giving, period.

And so in 2008 when the stock market went down, there was a whole lot less giving, and it – because it’s on a – based on a three-year rolling basis, it has taken a while for that to go back up. So foundations are ramping up their funding now, but as the economy is growing slowly, so is the amount of foundation giving. And when you look at statistics on giving, you kind of – you see that. So that’s one issue that you didn’t identify.

But the other ones that you did identify are very true. We are very – all very much agreed on in the world of philanthropy that philanthropy plays a very specific role in our society. We are not government. When government stops funding important things that Americans and world citizens believe are important things, philanthropy cannot fill the void. We say that as a philanthropic association again and again and again, so every government official hears it: Philanthropy cannot fill the void left by a government disinvesting in communities.

So we are very conscious of government – adequate funding levels of government. Our members – the world of philanthropy is very diverse, so you have some very conservative foundations, you have very progressive foundations. They are all over the map on whether or not foundations – whether or not governments should be taxing more, where it should be getting its revenues from and all that, those kinds of issues. But we are fairly unanimous on the fact that philanthropy can’t play the role of government and it shouldn’t.

And there was one other thing in what – in the question that you posed that I was going to react to, and I forget what it was.

QUESTION: Income inequality.

MR. HASAN: Income inequality, yes. And so foundations – a lot of foundations are doing a lot of work on income equality, and I think that you’ve heard in a lot of the comments today from our panelists that so many of – so much of philanthropic work is focused on people who are in economic disadvantaged positions in communities around the world. That’s not to say that a lot of philanthropic dollars, frankly, do in fact go to the orchestra; it goes to Harvard University and places that, arguably, do not work towards changing society – society’s economic structure. But a very large portion of philanthropic giving is very progressive and aimed at helping people who have the greatest amount of need.

Can foundations alone change the structure of our society? Probably not. But there are some very valiant efforts going on.

MR. COLEMAN: One other trend that I would just highlight over the last sort of five to 10-year period has been the rise of impact investing, or double bottom line investing, which we at Rockefeller Foundation have sort of helped to try and grow the infrastructure for. So this is where people are – either institutional philanthropy or in a lot of cases personal giving are looking for – looking to marry their social returns and their financial returns. They don’t want to just be making a lot of money over here and then giving it to good causes over there. And we have helped to really – one of the things we at Rockefeller have focused on is helping to develop the metrics for measuring the social impact, because, of course, there’s very long-established systems for measuring the financial impact, but measuring the social impact still has to catch up. So we’ve been putting some of our grant-making into helping to build some of those – some of that architecture to help people do double bottom line or impact investing more easily.

MODERATOR: Okay, last question here in New York.

QUESTION: Hi. Could you explain the opportunities for just individuals who’s not in philanthropic community to give? I mean, just in their daily lives.

MR. HASAN: Well, there are literally millions of – well, millions, I don’t know – (laughter) – but nonprofits across the country. So anybody can write a check, and increasingly nonprofits accept donations through their websites. And so, I mean, there are – if an organization really wants to let – if an individual wants to have an intermediary between them and the nonprofit community, a good place to start is a New York Community Trust kind of organization that can help them think through their personal giving.

There are also lots – for people who have large amounts of money who are wanting to give it away in a very thoughtful way and not just like write a check to Harvard University – not that we don’t love Harvard – but there are lots of philanthropic advisor services out there for people – high-net wealth individuals. Citi actually has those services, lots of other – Morgan Stanley and lots of other banks have them, but there are dedicated philanthropy individuals, consultants who work in this field who help people with high net worth give their funds away. So there’s a lot of options.

QUESTION: Individual giving is rising? You said that push another –

MR. HASAN: Well, so individual giving is like – is like I said, it’s 72 percent of the total picture of private giving, whereas foundation funding is 16 percent of total private giving. So individual grant-making, I – individual donations, like my individual check to the United Way or whatever, I don’t have statistics on those things or – and I assume that those donations – individual donations are also related to the economy in a much more direct and immediate fashion, whereas, as I said, philanthropic – organized philanthropy is on a three-year rolling basis and 5 percent giving of assets, which is kind of tied to the economy but kind of --

MR. COLEMAN: A little delayed --

MR. HASAN: It’s like a three-year delay, basically, or something, whereas Americans’ charitable giving is directly related. If you lost your job, you’re probably not giving a $100 check to the food pantry. You’re probably going to the food pantry. So --

QUESTION: Hi. Marta Torres from La Razon newspaper from Spain. I would like to ask you something that you just addressed, but on the reverse. And my question is if you have noticed that during the recent crisis overall in Europe, you are getting more requests from help from Europe, from countries like Spain, Italy, Portugal, maybe Ireland. And if besides helping to get you on board on projects, you are being asked for advice to lobby in European countries where a public foundation was very high, but during the crisis, all the budgets, they are being – shrink, and now there is no room for the cultural ministries and some other ministries to keep on going with their projects, given the situation. Thank you.

MR. HASAN: So I’ll just speak a little bit on your behalf, because I doubt many of you have gotten requests from Portugal or Spain or Greece. But I think that the best thing the foundations do, especially large organized foundations like these ones, is set out a very clear set of funding missions and goals in the types of things that they fund. And that does not change when the economy is up or the economy is down. I think that a lot of foundations do have sort of like little bits of, here and there, kind of venture philanthropy of like special projects, funds that they fund, and you never know when you might be able to get them at the right moment for some particular crisis. But most foundations say this is what we do, and an earthquake could happen in X part of the world, or a financial crisis in this part of the world, and they’re really – by their mission and their board of directors, need to stay focused on the issues that the original donor intended. So I doubt that many of them have really responded to those kinds of crises.

MS. HOCHMAN: I can say when it comes to natural disasters, we are there. Depending on whether – if we’re on the ground in terms of our business, we think about it as – there’s a formula that we use. So how much of an impact because of that event is – has there been on our business, on our customers, and on our employees? So that’s something that we would take into consideration. Disaster relief is not really a separate focus area of ours, but certainly one that we’re very serious about and we have come to the table with a significant amount of money to help support natural disasters in those areas – geography is where we have major presence.

MR. HASAN: I will say on that thing, one though, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation – it’s a Greek family that’s based – the foundation is based – a member of Philanthropy New York, and they have, obviously, done a huge amount of increased charitable giving in Greece over the past couple years. So --

QUESTION: And what about lobbying – sorry – for help to lobby the European countries, because now there’s no money to support cultural programs and you don’t --

MR. HASAN: Here in the United States too. (Laughter.) So I’d – again, I don’t know of too many foundations here locally that are involved in supporting increasing cultural life in those communities.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: If I could just follow up. Are you – do you hear some people from other countries consulting with you --


QUESTION: -- on how is philanthropy done in the U.S.? How can we institute --

MR. HASAN: Yes. Yes. There is a growing philanthropic community in Europe, for sure. People who realized that government can’t do it all in Europe even, and there is a foundation, center, sort of thing in Brussels, I think.

MR. REMALEY: In Brussels. Yeah.

MR. HASAN: And there’s also a new – in the United States there’s a communications network, which is communications professionals at foundations, and there’s a new network in Europe. I think it’s also based at that same center in Brussels. So those – and our national body, the Council on Foundations, that is the national kind of association of foundations based in Washington, D.C. I know that they do a lot of work with European counterparts. So --

MR. COLEMAN: And China, India as well. We had an event marking our centennial in Beijing in January last year. The event itself was focused on health, but we had a side event afterwards where we had various Chinese philanthropists, and they were interested just in our experience and shared knowledge and learning, and obviously we have things to learn from them as well as them from us.

MR. REMALEY: And we get a fair number of people coming to the New York Community Trust from other parts of the world. In fact, I’m meeting next week with somebody from Melbourne, Australia, similarly setting up charitable trusts. And we’ve worked – the trust being an all-community foundation – I think in setting up in-community foundations in about nine different countries over the past few years. When I say setting up, we’re not giving the money to start it, but kind of the peer information and technical assistance on how does it fit in the governance structures. Because I think the concept of philanthropy is one that is becoming more formalized in other parts of the world as well – I mean, too kind of locally focused, but clearly there.

MODERATOR: Great. Well, that’s been very informative. Thank you so much for being here today. Thank you for attending. Thank you to our colleagues in Washington, and we appreciate your time.

# # #