AUG 1 8 1999- WEE—5: 25¢ per day per ite- RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to name charge from circulation records AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED FOUNDATIONS ACTIVITIES IN FUNDING GRANTS FOR CONTINUING AND NONTRADITIONAL EDUCATION, 1973-1978 BY Diane H. DePuydt A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1981 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED FOUNDATIONS ACTIVITIES IN FUNDING GRANTS FOR CONTINUING AND NONTRADITIONAL EDUCATION, 1973-1978 BY Diane H. DePuydt The Problem There is a growing awareness among educators and the general public of both the need and the demand for more adult education programming. Continuing education, traditionally considered peripheral to the education sys- tem, is now recognized as an important aspect of institu- tional survival. For higher education, faced with declin- ing enrollments of 18-22 year olds, attracting the previ- ously ignored adult learner is critical. To effectively compete for this constituency, colleges and universities must, in essence, "retool" their administrative and aca- demic frameworks to accommodate both traditional and non- traditional adult students. The need to integrate continuing education into the mainstream of education comes at a time when higher education is fighting simply to maintain a "steady state." However, it is well within the scope of private philan- thropic foundations to assist institutions in this task. Diane H. DePuydt The foundation grants process is designed to respond to new, unmet needs. They have, moreover, a tradition of support for higher education institutions. The extent to which foundations, in keeping with their role of enabler, have provided grants to help insti- tutions respond to this changing focus has not been known. The Method This study explored the foundation response to the expanded need for continuing and nontraditional education. Its primary objective was to identify and analyze the extent and type of con- tinuing and nontraditional education activities funded from 1973 through 1978. Data was collected on grants made by fifteen selected major general purpose foundations for the six year period. The data base was the Foundation Grants Index (FGI). Continuing and nontraditional education grants made by the foundations were selected by a computer scan of all grant listings searching for descriptors which identified these activities. There were 577 grants identified in the FGI search. Decision rules were developed to eliminate any inappropriate grants. IndecksC research cards were used to code and analyze information regarding donor foundations, recipi- ents, year of award, amoung and grant purpose. Diane H. DePuydt The Results Data from this study were analyzed focusing on the foundations, the recipients, the year and the grant purposes. There were 434 grants made in the 1973-78 period by the fifteen foundations. The total appropriation was $56.8 million. Five foundations accounted for 82.5 percent of all contributions. Higher education was the favored recipient, gathering 60.7 percent of all grants and 63.7 percent of all appropriations. Public colleges and universities were favored two to one over private institutions. Traditional continuing education programs received the broadest base of support from all foundations. For nontraditional education, learning resource centers and external degree programs were favored projects. Training was the only type of activity where non-profit organiza- tions received grants equal to those awarded to higher education. Comparisons between FGI data and Annual Reports uncovered numerous examples of under-reporting by the FGI of grants relevant to this study. The shortcomings of the FGI proved to be the major finding of the study. Lack of consistent terminology and the voluntary nature of the reporting system were traced as two of the reasons. The amount of understatement for grants in the FGI was not, however, considered great enough to alter the basic conclusions concerning foundation contributions Diane H. DePuydt to continuing and nontraditional education. The magnitude of funding for this area was small for the six years except among those foundations with a traditional interest in the field. Higher education was the favored recipient and career related programs were the preferred purpose. The difficulties encountered with the FGI can be taken into consideration in designing future research. The problems are correctable if the foundations provide the time, money and commitment. LIST OF LIST OF CHAPTER I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PHILANTHROPY AND HIGHER EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Role of Philanthropy in U.S. Higher Education 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O . The Growth of Private Foundations . . . . . Investigations of Foundation Activities . . Foundations and Higher Education . . . . . Higher Education in the 19705 . . . . . . . Reaching the Adult Learner . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . Objectives of This Study . . . . . . . . . The Foundation Grants Index Data Base . . . Study Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selecting the Foundations . . . . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Page iv vi p... NHQGUIH FJH 14 15 16 22 26 33 38 39 41 41 41 42 43 44 46 52 57 CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . Introduction . . . . . Levels of Foundation Contributions Types of Grant Recipients . Purpose of the Grants . Foundations with Special Interest Adult Education . . . Adequacy of Information Sources . Summary . . . . . . . . V. THREE CASE STUDIES . . Introduction . . . . . The Carnegie Corporation of New The Lilly Endowment . . The Cleveland Foundation Summary . . . . . . . . in VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction . . . . . Summary and Conclusions Recommendations . . . . ENDNOTES O O O I O O O O O O O BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A. The Foundation Grants Index Search Forms . . . . and Computer B. IndecksC Code Cards and Sample FGI Grants C. The Cleveland Foundation iii Page 58 58 59 68 75 83 85 90 92 92 93 103 113 124 127 127 128 141 144 155 161 161 166 170 LIST OF TABLES The Number of Foundations Reported in Directories Published from 1915 to 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Period of Establishment of 5,436 Founda- tions, by Decade after 1900 . . . . . Criteria for Inclusion in The Foundation Directory, by Edition . . . . . . . . Categories of Foundation Grants 1921- 1930 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Categories of U.S. Foundation Giving, 1962-73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Grants Within Education, 1921-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grants Within the Field of Education, 1974-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher Education: Estimated Total of Voluntary Support by Source and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adult Participation in Organized Educational Activities . . . . . . . . Continuing and Nontraditional Education Grants from Selected Foundations 1973-1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continuing and Nontraditional Education Grants as a Proportion of Eight Individual Foundations Grant Appropriations, 1973-1978 . . . . . . Continuing and Nontraditional Educa- tion Grant Recipients . . . . . . . . iv Page 20 21 22 26 27 28 29 31 36 61 65 69 Table Page 4.3. Continuing and Nontraditional Education Grant Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.4. Appropriations to Recipients of Continu- ing and Nontraditional Education Grants 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 71 4.5. Types of Continuing and Nontraditional Education Grants, Full and Partial Purposes O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 76 5.1. The Carnegie Corporation of New York: Summary of Continuing and Nontra- ditional Education Grants, 1973- 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 5.2. The Lilly Endowment: Summary of Grants for Continuing and Nontraditional Education, 1973-1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5.3. The Lilly Endowment: Faculty Development Grants 1973-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 5.4. The Cleveland Foundation: Summary of Grants for Continuing and Nontra- ditional Education, 1973-1978 . . . . . . . . 122 5.5. Cleveland Foundation Contributions to Education, Postsecondary Education, and Continuing and Nontraditional Education, 1973-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 5.6. Analysis of Postsecondary Education Grants by Functional Purpose . . . . . . . . . 125 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3.1. Sample Grant Listing from the Foundation Grants Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.2. Primary Classifications of Grant Purposes . . . 55 vi CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction In the early history of American higher education, private philanthropy was of primary importance in the creation of new colleges and universities built to accommo- date the growing demand for increased educational Oppor- tunities. By the twentieth century, private foundations, developed as a conduit for philanthropy, promoted the gen- eral improvement of the higher education system. They secured the idea of education for women, introduced electives into the curriculum, and helped upgrade salaries, and establish pension funds for faculty.1 Following the second world war, higher education entered a twenty-five year period of phenomenal growth. Demobilization and the educational benefits of the G.I. Bill enabled millions of veterans to attend college. Cold War politics and paranoia produced billions of dollars for uni- versity R & D and for student financial aid through the National Defense Student Loan Program. In the 19603, the bulge of pOpulation cohorts known as the "Baby Boom Generation" descended on to the college campuses. During this decade alone enrollments and expenditures for higher education more than doubled.2 It was during this postwar period that public ex- penditures for higher education permanently surpassed private sector contributions. By 1973 federal outlays for higher education exceeded $8 billion, accounting for over 25 percent of higher education funds. Private philanthrOpy contributed $2.25 billion adding another 8 percent to higher education resources.3 For public higher education, state and local government had become the basic source of support. The federal role was primarily one of providing student financial aid and purchasing various educational services.4 Although private sources continued.to be the primary providers of general support for private colleges and uni- versities, foundations increasingly concentrated their funds to both public and private institutions for specific purposes such as research, curriculum development, and diversifica- tion of learning Opportunities. The role of foundations became that of enabler. . . . in contrast to virtually all other institutions, they [foundations] have pools of funds that are not commited to sustaining ongoing normal activities. This leaves them free to respond quickly and signifi- cantly to new, unmet needs. It also leaves them free to take the lone view, to sense emergent revolutions of the future, to understand earlier the causes of tomorrow's problems.5 Because there has always been a seemingly infinite gap between the budget and the ideal aims of education, it has been higher education's good fortune to be able to rely on steady contributions from foundations, contributions critical to the educational environment today. The 19705 has brought about an abrupt change in the state of higher education. The basis of this new condition is that the prOportion of the traditional college population has apparently leveled off. Current projections, further- more, indicate that by the mid-19803 college enrollments will begin to diminish in absolute numbers.6 Occurring on the heels of unprecedented growth and in the context of economic recession, this change has forced higher education into a "steady state" or no-growth posture. The depressed job market has called into question heavy public investment in education. The federal role is becoming stabilized. There are fewer initiatives and new apprOpria- tions. State and local governments are also in weaker fis- cal positions than in previous decades and have been forced to limit their appropriations. Concurrent with the declining importance of the traditional college age population has been the increase in both the participation of adults in educational activities and in the general awareness of their participation. Sur- veys done by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) indicate that part-time participation by adults in organized educational activities grew from 7.6 percent of the adult population in 1957 to 11.6 percent in 1975. Additionally, one-third of all full-time 1974 enrollments in postsecondary education were identified as over twenty- five years of age.7 There are several reasons for the heightened inter- est in adult education. One is that adults are simply becoming more numerous. The baby boom cohort is getting older. In 1968, 108 million peOple were twenty-one years a \ old or older. The Bureau of the Census estimated in 1976 33 that the number had risen to 136 million.8 Other factors L affecting participation in adult education include: the ’- changing role of women in society over the last ten years; the greater availability of leisure time; increased longe- vity of the elderly; career changes and job retraining. Government, academic and privately sponsored Com— missions and Task Forces have produced a plethora of reports and recommendations for meeting the needs of the adult learner. Many of these have been directed at postsecondary .institutions. Examples of these recommendations include: czhanging admissions and registration procedures to accommo- ciiate the working adult; develOpment of nontraditional edu- <==éation models that reflect adult modes of learning; modifying degree requirements to account for experience-learning.9 Recognizing the need to expand to other markets in the face 0 f diminishing demand of the traditional student, higher ‘Ea:<53:ucation is attempting to reSpond. Continuing education, traditionally considered 1E2"EE=Jripheral to the education system, is now recognized as a v - . . . . . ;‘~'t:al aspect to institutional surVival. Like other segments of the system it has suffered from funding shortages and has frequently been required to be completely self-supporting in its operations. To effectively compete with other insti- tutions within and outside of the formal education system, colleges and universities must, in essence, "retool" their administrative frameworks to accommodate both traditional \ and nontraditional adult students. This task of integrating continuing education into the mainstream of higher education is well within the scope of foundation activity. The extent to which foundations, in keeping with their role of "enabler," have responded to this changing focus is not, however, known. Purpose of the Study It is against this background that this study has sought to explore the foundation response to the expanded need for continuing and nontraditional education. Speci- fically the study has focused on the following concerns: 1. What has been the magnitude of support for contin- uing and nontraditional education activities among the foundations in this study? Has there been any yearly variations in foundation support for these activities? What has been the level of foundation commitment to this area as a prOportion of their annual domestic contributions? 2. What types of institutions and organizations have been recipients of foundation grants for continuing and nontraditional education activities? As a recipient of foundation grants in this area, how does higher education compare with other institu- tions and organizations in the level of support they have received? To what extent have individual recipients been awarded multiple grants for con- tinuing and nontraditional education activities? 3. What kinds of continuing and nontraditional edu- cation activities have received foundation support? Which have received the most support? IS there any relationship between the type of recipient and activity funded? Have there been specific kinds of activity funded? Have there been Specific kinds of programs that have received Special attention from individual foundations? Has there been any interest ’ in grants directed at the learning needs of parti- / cular groups of adults? \ 4. How do these foundations that have Specified an ‘ interest in Adult Education compare in their funding patterns to the other foundations in the study?10 Significance of the Study In an era where higher education institutions are utilizing all available resources simply to maintain opera- tions, the ability to obtain grants, both private and public, is critical if the institutions are to respond to changing needs and constituencies. Generally, the government will Specify a narrowly defined need or problem and then solicit preposals from institutions wishing to tackle the subject. Foundations, on the other hand, provide greater latitude for :iJistitutions to determine their own needs and interests ‘h7thhin general categories. Competition among education institutions is fierce, however, and available funds are limited. In 1976, founda— 1t145Luon grants to all educational institutions totaled only $ 2 00 million, 26 percent of the total of all foundation ll <::‘::>Jntributions. To be effective in seeking foundation dEE"LJLJndS, a thorough understanding of the funding patterns and 152’:‘=‘:iorities of foundations, both aggregate and individual, ‘ =53‘ critical. Foundations, moreover, have in recent years come under attack and scrutiny for their lack of public account- ability. The Filer Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs has recommended that foundations, and other / non-profit organizations, be more Open in their practices <\ even beyond disclosure measures mandated by the 1969 Tax fl ‘ 12 i Reform Act. Many foundations, responding to this government and public pressure, have voluntarily provided more information 1- to the public regarding their operations. In addition to yearly reports, some foundations also support the Foundation Center, a non-profit research and information center designed to provide the public with a centralized clearinghouse to facilitate the grant seeking process. Although a considerable amount of analysis and sub- stantive research has been completed since the Filer Com- Inission recommendations were released, there are still more aireas that need investigation. This examination of grant- Itléaking activities among foundations for a Specific field of fitfesecipient interest is an example of one such type of needed Jcrn, with funds and programs managed by its own trustees ::>;3==‘ directors, and established to maintain or aid social, E='’:13' the foundation. Except when limited by charter to speci- jEEF4jL-<: purposes, most foundations list general health, education 75:“):1<fl welfare purposes in compliance with the IRS Code. COMPANY SPONSORED FOUNDATION: a foundation that derives its funds from company profits. INDEPENDENT or FAMILY FOUNDATION; derives its funds from a family fortune. The former term is the one preferred by the Council on Foundations. \ .. .. iq LARGE and SMALL FOUNDATIONS: drawn from the defini- F} i tions provided by the Foundation Center in their Foundation Directory, a large foundation is defined as one with minimum assets Of at least $25 million. All others are small founda- ‘ ‘ tions. A further distinction can be made between a small "Directory" foundation, with assets between $l-25 million or annual grants of at least $100,000, and "non-Directory" foundations with assets under $1 million or annual giving of less than $100,000. Of the estimated 26,000 foundations in the nation, approximately 23,000 are non-Directory foundations. Their éaggregate assets, however, are only about 10 percent Of all foundation assets . FOUNDATION ADMINISTRATOR: an executive Officer Of the foundation responsible for the allocation and administra- tion Of grants made by the foundation, in this study, to ‘Ei‘:5l‘ucational institutions. PHILANTHROPY: voluntary contributions Of money made ‘1:>I§é' individuals or organizations for specific purposes, the bQIiefits of which do not accure back to the donor. 10 INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION: all colleges, universities, graduate schools, professional schools and other accredited degree-granting institutions in the United States. ADULT LEARNER: an adult who is a participant in any learning Opportunity, whether special or regular, formal or nonformal, to develop new Skills or qualifications, or to improve existing Skills or qualifications, or to acquire information. ADULT EDUCATION, CONTINUING EDUCATION, LIFELONG EDUCATION, NONTRADITIONAL EDUCATION, RECURRENT EDUCATION: are some of the terms which have provideddefinitional problems to almost everyone in the field. The terms can be quite synonymous or distinct depending on one's perSpective. For purposes of this study CONTINUING and NONTRADITIONAL EDUCATION will be the principal terms used for the entire thody Of organized educational processes, whatever the con- ‘t:r adults who are not served by traditional educational O fferings in their communities. CONTINUING AND NONTRADITIONAL EDUCATION ACTIVITIES: a special purpose term developed for this study to encompass the types Of projects and programs that foundations could :IEF"£lJnd in this field. These include: program development, L 11 start-up costs, Operating expenses, demonstration projects, research, anxiliary or support services, conferences, and training programs. Scholarships and other student aid, construction, equipment and staff salaries are not included. NONTRADITIONAL STUDENT, ADULT STUDENT: any individual a engaged in a program Of instruction who is not between the ages of 17-23 and who has not entered a higher education institution immediately upon completion Of secondary schOOl- [7 ing. Assumptions The major assumption made by this study is that non- traditional and continuing education is, and will remain, one Of the most important growth areas for higher education. .Although recent literature overwhelmingly supports this view, :forecasting techniques for social and behavioral sciences Eire not sufficiently develOped to be reliably predictive. Additionally, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Edu- <==éattion in their report, Toward a Learning Society, argues S trongly for continuing education in all types of institu- ‘tZLJiLnonal settings both educational and other.14 In spite of 1tZ-ilfilnis Opinion, it is assumed that most foundations still <:=‘=:>Jnsider higher education their primary focus for post- a e<:Ondary activity. This assumption is predicated on the fact that most foundation grants for education have been to higher education institutions, therefore establishing a '1t:; . . . :‘=‘£3dition of support. Foundations, moreover, have generally 12 held the belief that higher education has the staff, equip- ment, atmosphere and prediSposition most suitable for many kinds Of problem-solving and that universities and colleges j have historically demonstrated their capacity to adapt to the nation's research, scientific and professional needs.15 / Finally, it is assumed that the information that the foundations have made public concerning their grant-making activities is sufficient for comparative analysis. w“ Limitations Because the SCOpe and context Of continuing and non- traditional education is so encompassing, it is possible that many Of these activities may not be readily identifi- able. Considerable confusion exists within the field Of education in defining what is or is not continuing or non- traditional education. It must be recognized, therefore, ‘that relevant grants may not be apprOpriately categorized. Additionally, some portion Of foundation funds, eSpecially for private education institutions, are for IJLInrestricted use. It is beyond the scope of this study to éEiwsscertain how much of these unrestricted funds are being used by individual institutions to develop continuing and Jr3l<::ntraditional education activities. It Should also be noted that the six year study JE;’<'=‘2riod was chosen to conform to limitations of the Founda- ‘.::-:i.on Center's Grants Index, this study's primary data $"Durce. Foundation grant records were entered into this 13 computer storage system beginning in 1973. At the time the data was collected, 1978 was the most recent year for com— plete grant information. A further limitation of the Foundation Grants Index is in the storage Of the data. The information that the computer can provide is only as complete as that which is supplied to it in the first place. It Should be remembered that this element Of human error underlies all computer- based research of this type. CHAPTER II PHILANTHROPY AND HIGHER EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ' Lin—1&9 Introduction The practice Of leaving prOperty in perpetuity to r other than paternal heirs can be traced back to both Egypt and Chaldea. By 180 A.D. it had become widespread through- out the Roman Empire.1 Initially these bequests were encouraged for religious reasons, to honor the gods. Gradually, however the motives shifted to helping the poor.2 The Romans brought the concept to England where it eventually became codified into the Anglo-Saxon legal system. The Statute Of Charitable Uses enacted in 1601 was perhaps the real starting point for philanthropy. It provided for the encouragement and organization of private almsgiving and it stimulated the rapid growth of charitable trusts in England.3 Legal precedent and religious teachings predisposed the American Colonists to the idea Of charitable trusts. The colonies, however, had a dearth of surplus wealth which Slowed the development of institutional philanthrOpy until ‘well into the nineteenth century.4 14 15 The Role Of Philanthropy in U.S. Higher Education Once the survival and subsistence of the early American Colonies was assured, the provision of higher edu- cation became a priority concern. The resources needed to establish Harvard, Yale, William and Mary and other colleges came from individuals who realized that the infant settle- [ ments would need quality leadership in years to come. Con- ln’J‘ mr . tributions were made by merchants, farmers and trappers. The gifts were small and Often consisted Of commodities or We... services. The pattern Of support was sufficient, however, because the need for advanced education was also small.5 Numerous individuals giving support Of higher education was the primary financial resource for colleges and universities until the mid-18005. The Industrial Age brought about the first major change in philanthropic support to education. With the explosion in technological and economic growth, the need for higher education also increased. The pOpulation had grown. There were more towns and cities, new technologies to learn and more people seeking education. This was also the era that saw the rise of tremendous personal wealth among a small group of industrialists. John HOpkins, Ezra Cornell, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Leeland Stanford are some Of the names that have become linked to the history of the nation and to the existence of higher education.6 Firm believers in the principles of Social Darwinism, tzhese men saw the value of educational institutions in 16 preserving freedom and providing the leadership Of the future. They were also looking for monuments that would continue their names. This was the time Of endowments, large gifts of money for the establishment of colleges, normal schools and for the establishment Of colleges, normal schools and universities. John Hopkins University was a founded with an initial gift Of $3.5 million. Ezra Cornell L donated $500,000 and Leeland Stanford gave $20 million to establish their universities. The money that poured into higher education from all sources during this period pre- cipitated a boom in college foundings. Every religious sect and private interest wanted to set up their own institutions.7 Around the turn of the century the third phase Of philanthrOpy took hold. AS many of these industrial barons began to age, they sought a mechanism to divest themselves Of their excess wealth, to limit their tax liability and to insure continuation of their philanthrOpic activities. They established private philanthropic foundations whose pattern Of support for education significantly influenced the direction Of academia in the twentieth century. The Growth Of Private Foundations As a distinctive U.S. institution, the general philanthrOpic foundation is barely a century Old. Its typical attributes have largely evolved only within the last sixty years. 17 Many historians identify the Smithsonian Institution, created in 1846 by James Smithson for "the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men," as the nation's first foundation.8 Others consider the establishment, in 1867, Of the Peabody Education Fund, to improve education in the south, as the beginning Of the foundation as we know it.9 The critical point of departure for the modern foundation, however, was the initiatives Of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller in the first decade Of this century. Spurred on by Carnegie and Rockefeller, trend setters in the field, foundations changed from making charitable gifts to the needy to a philanthrOpy that tried to attack the causes of the problems or to find solutions.10 Carnegie's philosophy, that the "duty Of rich men [is] to consider their fortunes as trusts to be held in the name of the less fortunate," was the basis for the establish- 11 Between 1905 and 1911, Carnegie ment Of his foundations. created nine separate foundations. Fifty-Six million dollars was spent for the development Of 2,509 community libraries and over $125 million went to the last Of his foundations, the Carnegie Corporation Of New York.12 Carnegie believed that education was indeed the "great equalizer" and this has remained the major focus of all the Carnegie Foundation's activities. John D. Rockefeller, who founded the University Of Chicago with a gift Of $30 million, established the General 13ducation Board in 1902 to promote and improve education in 18 the U.S. Over the next eighteen years, until the Board ceased Operation in 1926, Rockefeller gave $123 million to support GEB activities, particularly upgrading teacher salaries. At that time, the Rockefeller Foundation, created in 1913 took over education activities and began focusing on medical education reform.13 Foundations concentrated their early efforts on higher education for two major reasons. Philosophically they believed their purpose was to add to, not just maintain, man's existing knowledge, powers and well being, to make possible greater efforts of national importance. Pragmati- cally, they were concerned with the strengthening and building Of institutions at a time when higher education was in chaos.14 The multiplicity of small colleges created con- fusion, duplications and wasted resources. There were more colleges than there were students. Curriculum was poorly defined and faculty were Often not well prepared. Selective giving and frequent use Of the challenge grant were ways that the foundations used their money to establish institu- tional viability.15 The Depression and World War II brought a Shift in foundation grants from general support to grants for special activities or facilities. During the 19305 endowment grants virtually stopped. The war years brought on a heavy emphasis in research in the sciences and support for voluntary ‘accreditation, testing and teaching methods.16 152! F' {2.0 saw-gm. t.“ ‘—-u- . I. 19 Following the war, foundations moved toward support of non-profit research organizations and other non-education institutes such as BrOOkings, The National Bureau for Economic Research, and The American Council On Education. The educational community supported this because they saw 17 The these agencies as a way to disseminate knowledge. fact that funding of these organizations was generally in addition to aid that colleges were already receiving helped in their acceptance. Although precise data on foundations is lacking due to the private nature under which they have Operated, it is evident that during the 19405 there was a sharp rise in the number of foundations established (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2).18 This increase was due to the high tax rate resulting from the war which brought about the emergence Of company- 5ponsored foundations and a new emphasis upon family founda- tions with living donors. Before 1900 there were approximately eighteen founda- tions. Today there are 21,505. Less than 10 percent of all foundations were established prior to 1940.19 In 1960, the Foundation Center was established in New York City for the collection of data on foundations in the United States. Today they are considered the primary 20 The Foundation Center authority on foundation activities. has published seven directories with information concerning the largest foundations (Table 2.3). The 3,138 foundations reported comprise 15 percent Of all U.S. foundations. They 20 Omufloo .uoucou muwunflq coaumpcsom one an Omummmum OmuHOw .HODSOO Shannan cowumpqsom one wn Omummoum .mfizmq .o mccmflumz Ucm couamz .o and >n .COHDMOcdom comm Haommsm an Omnmaansm m .m3mHO:¢ SOmuoem .h can souHm3 .Q sc< >9 .coaumcssom comm Hammmsm an Umzmflansmm .nowm wOHoenm HmEHfl3 ha Omnmmoum .mow>kmm coeumeuomcH chHOMOSSOh cmowuoefl an conmflandmp oz aflmnm >Q Smugflcflwé x08 U58 m COHUflUQ QVOH .monoonooo .m m>oz one roam noaoenn Hogans an ooueoo .H> .Ho> “OHonwom w>ocou ma OOHHQEOO > can >H .mHo> .mmumHOOmm4 Scam OSCEhmm an Omsmaansm . O .xnoao nno>m no ooueoo .ooon Snooeoo someoeoze an oonneanon Q .m3muocd comwoem .m cam comfiuumm .cofipmocdom comm Hammmsm Sn nonmfiandmm noo.o mm noeoeom .Suouooneo ooeoooooon one vooH No~.m on eoeueom .Suooooneo eoeomonoon one come NOH.¢ OHH> .mOHoem uflmne can chflumocsom SMOHHOES mmma mmm OH> .mOHoam HHOSB can mSOHumocsom covauosd mvma mom moummaos Hmeoom wow mSOHumocsom cmOHHoem ovma vam o> .mOHOSE Mamas cam mSOHumocsom conflumec Nvma mom o>H .mOHmHm Mecca cam m50flumccsom SMOHHOE¢ mmma mma monomaoz Hofloom now mSOSUMOOSOE confluoea wmma mmH anHOAm uwmze cam chHumocsom :moaumec vmmH mmH nmpaowm Mamas can m50fiumocsom SMOHHOES mmma NNH nmcamwm mamas cam mSOHumpcsom cmownoe< Hmma mma monumaoz Hmwoom How mSOHumpcdom SMOHHOE¢ Omma mnH chHumpssom cmomeES omma SNH mmSOSUMOcsom consumem vaH on omSOHumOssom cmoeumES Omma hm omSOHUMOcsom SMOflHoem mama mSOSUMOssom muouomuflo mo mauwa How» mo Honssz .vwma ou mama EOHM Umamwdndm mOHHOUOOHHQ CH wouuommm OGOHumccdom MO HOQEDZ OSBII.H.N mnmdfi 21 TABLE 2.2.--Period Of Establishment Of 5,436 Foundations, by Decade after 1900. Total 5,436 100% before 1900 18 + 1900-1909 16 + 1910-1919 75 1 1920-1929 157 3 1930-1939 259 5 1940-1949 1,134 21 1950-1959 2,546 47 1960-1969* 1,231 23 2'1" _ “- ‘*‘ m“: my . ‘ ‘ I, *incomplete data for recent years. +1e55 than 0.5 percent. Note: year of origin unavailable for eighteen Directory Foundations. Source: Foundation Directory, 45h Edition, 1971. 22 TABLE 2.3--Criteria for Inclusion in The Foundation Direc- tory, by Edition. Criteria* Edition Number of (Data Year) Assets Or Grants Foundations 1 (1960) $ 50,000 $ 10,000 5,202 2 (1964) 100,000 10,000 6,007 3 (1965) 200,000 10,000 6,803 4 (1969) 500,000 25,000 5,454 5 (1972) 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,533 6 (1976) 1,000,000 100,000 2,819 7 (1978) 1,000,000 100,000 3,138 *Minimum levels Of assets or grant payments needed to qualify for the Directory. control, however, 93 percent of all assets, $32.4 billion, and 92 percent Of all grants paid $2.1 billion.21 Although in aggregate the unreported foundations control large assets, their giving is SO diffuse and local in nature as to be con- sidered unimportant in the foundation field.22 Investigations Of Foundation Activities The comparative newness Of the general philanthrOpic foundation as an institution, the variety of its forms, its blend of public and private characteristics and the subtlety of its functions, make it hard to understand. It is not surprising, therefore that there have been four Congressional investigations and two privately sponsored Commissions Since 1915. In 1915 Senator Frank Walsh accused foundations of being dominated by big business. Representatives Eugene Cox 23 and B. Carroll Reece investigated foundations in 1952 and 1954 respectively, on charges concerning use Of resources for subversive activities, prOpaganda and support of com- munist and socialist organizations.23 The continued growth in the number Of foundations prompted Representative Wright Patman to determine if legislation was needed to provide supervisory control over tax exempt foundations. The allegation was that foundations were being created by individuals to escape payment Of taxes and tO keep control Of large segments Of American business in the hands Of a family or small group.24 The Patman investigation lasted over six years, bringing greater attention to foundations in the popular press, and precipitating reforms of certain abuses commited 25 by some foundations. In 1961, foundations were finally required to file annual reports on IRS 990-A forms, breaking down assets, income and grants. Additionally, the Treasury Department in 1965 increased supervision of foundation Operations and legal activities including:26 1. prohibiting transactions between donors of funds and foundation administrators; 2. requiring distribution on a reasonably current basis of net income; 3. limiting to 20 percent the voting stock or equity a foundation could hold in any one company and to 25 percent the representation Of donor families on foundations governing boards; and 4. restricting lending, prohibiting borrowing for investment or speculative purposes. The Tax Reform Act of 1969 was the culmination of the Patman inquiry. Basic provisions Of the Act require foundations to pay out in grants at least 6 percent of 24 investment income and an annual 4 percent excise tax; impose sanctions and penalties for prohibited actions or failure to comply with requirements; and mandate broader reporting procedures including detailed annual reports on contribu- tions and activities in addition to the 900-A forms.27 The Commission on Foundations and Public Policy, chaired by Peter Peterson in 1969-70, addressed the question Of the continued need for philanthropy given the increased Federal expenditures in areas previously dominated by private giving. The Commission found that: . . . in contrast to virtually all other institutions, they [foundations] have pools of funds that are not committed to sustaining ongoing activities. This leaves them free to reSpond quickly and significantly tO new, unmet needs. It also leaves them free to take the long View, to sense emergent revolutions Of the future, to understand earlier the causes Of tomorrow's problems.28 Additionally the Commission surveyed fifty Chicago non- profit organizations. All Opposed total reliance on public funding citing political whims, rigidities, paper work, and loss of independence. They said: The test Of practical experience makes a dual system of private giving and government funding the way to allocate resources for the general welfare rather than the alternative of relying solely on government allocations. The major recommendations of the Peterson Commission call for more research and analysis Of foundation activities; improvement in planning and staff resources; and more attention in monitoring and evaluation of grants.30 The drastic decline in private philanthropy in the early 19705 prompted the formation of The Commission on 25 Private Philanthropy and Public Needs in 1973. Their report is the most comprehensive study Of philanthrOpy tO date. Under the direction Of John Filer, the Commission sponsored eighty-five studies on various aspects Of 3,000 individuals and it ran a detailed econometric analysis of tax and income data to determine what, if any, effect the charitable deduc- 31‘ tion had on the amount Of private giving. The recommenda- tions of the Commission include extending the charitable deduction, increasing corporate contributions to 2 percent of pre-tax income, better management of non-profit organiza- tions and more detailed analysis of foundation giving patterns.32 Many recent critics contend that foundations do not really support innovative and experimental projects to attack social problems, which is the rationale they give for their 33 existence. This criticism has been shared by many founda- tion administrators and trustees who feel that foundations need to give closer attention to fund distribution. Both Henry Ford II and John D. Rockefeller have held that founda- tions must do a better job of seeking out innovative and experimental projects to support.34 Foundations extend the power Of their founders into cultural areas of education, science, the arts and social relations. While much that is done in these areas under foundation auspices meets judicial approval, it is a fact that dispensations inevitably take the form Of patronage bestowed upon approved projects. Recipients Of the money must be ideologically acceptable to the donor. 26 When studying the foundation field it quickly becomes evident that the large foundation can wield tremendous influence via their grant-making activities in any area of interest. Foundation policy plays a powerful role and exerts a significant influence in ushering in changes in our form of society, and foundations play a part in directing the course of education in America.36 Foundations and Higher Education Although education has not been the only focus Of foundation grants, it has always been their primary interest. Tables 2.4 and 2.5 show the categories Of foundation grants for two different periods, 1920-30 and 1962-73. Education is the major area of contributions followed closely by health. The health field, however, also includes grants for medical education and to university-sponsored medical research.37 TABLE 2.4.--Categorie5 Of Foundation Grants 1921-1930. Total Percent Of Field $(000) Decade Total Education 233,000 43.3 Health 172,141 33.2 Social Welfare 74,226 14.4 Recreation 8,741 1.6 International Relations 8,132 1.5 Religion 7,705 1.4 Law & Government 6,709 1.3 Race Relations 936 0.16 Miscellaneous 245 0.04 Foundation Administration 16,164 3.4 Total 524,420 100.00 Source: E.C. Lindemann, Wealth and Culture (New York: Harcourt & Brace, 1936). 27 .onma aaumd .coaumosom mo mfioomod amcoaumz on» How owummonm Daemon Omnmaansmss :.mcoaumocsom oamOHSHSMaanm “Ono: cam SOauoosome .oocsa .m .m cam .Homcamaom .m .o .b .umussma>mm .unom scum omucaumom .vhma .mumacmnlmoma .>HMSSMb .xooca mucmuo coaumossom "moudom m uswouom ovm amuoa m emm e ea mm ee em mm em mm em mm m o coaoeaom m mmo vv No No me om mo mm ama av mo mm ma mama can moauasmesm ma omo no ooa mo om ooa Noa on an mo mo mm om moocoaow ma qvm No moa mma haa mm an No vo oaa 5v om mm mummamz va aao.a am on mo am mo mo vo ova mma om mo hm amcoaumsuouca ma moo.a mma mm mma voa om on aw vo moa mma mm mm Spammm mm m¢m.~ oma moa mom mom moa omm ama Noa mha oom om ooaw coaumosom AmSOaaaazv mHmaaoo Abomav usmumcoo ou Omuoouuoo @amah w ampoa mnma tha ahma onma moma moma homa ooma moma ooma moma Noma . .mnumoma nona>ao coauoocsom .m.D mo moanomopmo "m.N mamda 28 Additionally, analysis within the field Of Education indicates that generally higher education has been the favored area Of foundation assistance. This is seen in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 which break down education into sub- categories. The Lindemann data is for the 1921-30 decade and shows 61 percent of education grants to higher edu- cation. The Foundation Center breakdown for 1974-76 is similar, allowing for categorial differences. Endowments, buildings and fellowships would have largely been included in the higher education category of the earlier data. TABLE 2.6.--Analysis Of Grants Within Education, 1921-30. Amount Percent $(000) Higher Education 135,965 60.9 Elementary & Secondary 32,907 14.7 Elementary (alone) 5,766 2.6 Secondary (alone) 3,849 1.7 Adult Education 9,157 4.1 Libraries 7,511 3.4 VOcational 6,163 2.8 Esthetic & Cultural 5,811 2.6 Educational Publications 2,873 1.3 Training for Leadership 1,220 0.7 Educational Conferences 214 0.1 Pre-SchOOl Education 52 -- Unclassified 11,505 5.2 Total $223,001 100 Source: E. C. Lindemann, Wealth and Culture (New York: Harcourt and Brace, 1936). 29 .mSOHDDQHHpcOO coaumocsom aam mo usmonomt .aaxx .m .hhma .coauaom nuo Shouoouao SOHDMSOSOE one .Hmusoo coauwocsom one "wousom wmm mom.n won mmm.amm coauoooom 0» nocouo aouoa m mom a moo.aa aocoauooo> coo uaoom o eae m omm.ea nooaooaoonn< aoooauoooom m mom e mom.mm moauonnaq m mom o mem.mm uooeooao>oo amazonnoo o one e amm.oe sounonom Hoooauoooom Ha emm m mme.om ounce can .mmacmHMaonom .mmasmSOaamm om Hom.a ea mma.ao Snoooooom n snooooSoam ea eve ma mem.mo mooauooaoossoo a new ea omm.em onoeoaoom one nonaoaaom mm emm.a Hm emo.oma ooaooooom Hosea: w mucmuo mo m Aoooow Honesz Dances .oeuenma .ooauoooom mo oaoam or» canoes mucououu.n.~ mamas 30 There has been some increase in foundation grants to education below the post-secondary level since about 1960. Much Of this, however, has been experimental research done by university personnel. Consequently, the foundation grants generally stay with the university although the benefits may be pre-collegiate.38 After the second world war, higher education moved into a period Of tremendous growth. Enrollments and expen- ditures surged to new levels and the government took over as the basic provider Of financial support and student aid. In 1939-40, institutions Of higher education spent $675 million, about 9 percent. Twenty years later the federal contribution was $1.094 billion dollars and higher edu- cation expenditures had reached Over $5 billion.39 As a prOportion of higher education income, private philanthrOpy has dropped as the government has increased its allocations. In 1975-76, private sources provided only 6 percent Of the $38 billion received by higher education.40 The Council for Financial Aids to Education's annual survey of voluntary support to education shows that between 1972-78 foundation grants comprised approximately 20-23 percent of all private gifts to higher education (see Table 2.8). While this is only 2-3 percent Of all higher education income, the amount, in excess of $5 billion, is not insig- nificant. This is especially true when one realizes that the bulk Of foundation grants gO to a select few major uni- versities. Colvard and Bennet found that in 1970, .mhlnnaa ocm mhuehma .coaumosom mo unommsm wu5u55a0> mOINo>H5m amass< .SOaumosom on cam amaocmcam Mom aaossou "monsom 31 ma~.n one.a one one een eao.a nonconon Hooaono nnn.n ono.n ene.n onn.n oon.n on~.a economnooo aouaooo new men men man can non nonoo nma one ona man man an nnoeuonaooono noononaom non nee men enn enn onn meoauonoonoo moooenom nno nmn men nee mnn enn noonuooooon eon new mom onn onm ooo aneoaauooz eae one own one non enm nononn oee.n eeo.~ one.~ ooa.n one.~ een.~ maoooe mhlhhma hhlohma ohlmhma oblwhaa whimnma mulmhma .Amsoaaaae ca. mmomusm com monsom mo unommam muouc5ao> mo amuoe ooumaaumm "SOaumosom Hoomam||.o.~ mamas 32 twenty-five institutions Of higher education received 53 percent Of the total funds granted by foundations in that year.41 It is ironic that although philanthrOpy is con- sidered necessary in sustaining our pluralistic system by ensuring diversity and distribution Of control and responsi- bility, foundation giving to higher education is of suffi- cient magnitude to have repeatedly raised the question of their impact on university autonomy.42 Like other non- profit enterprises, colleges and universities are dependent upon, influenced by, and sometimes controlled by their 43 The degree Of external control is income sources. related to the variety and character Of funding sources. The more dependent on a single source, the more responsive an institution must be to that source.44 Foundations contribute only a small portion of total higher education income and very little is for general support. Although most funds are for specific projects, the ideas for the grants are usually generated by the uni- versities. TO be sure, universities tailor grant requests tO the interests of the foundation but this influence hardly constitutes widespread control. The Committee for Economic Development has stated: . . . the flow Of private support is essential to the diversity and strength and vitality of the nation's colleges and universities. It provides a means of achieving the high degree of independence and freedom indespensable to the attainment and preservation of superior quality in education. 33 Foundations have been crucial in providing basic support to private institutions and an important margin for improvement to public institutions. They have risked their capital on innovation and long range projects, exploring new areas before the government was willing to commit funds.46 Higher Education in the 19705 Two major themes have marked the direction Of higher education during the 19705. The concept Of the steady-state has emerged as the "new imperative" for financial management of educational institutions and the adult learner has been recognized as a legitimate client for post-secondary educational services. Finance, as a major problem in education, is not a new phenomenon. Education always runs at a deficit. There is never enough money to do all that could be done. "There is no such thing as a fixed production goal in education."47 This time, however, the causes Of the problem and its per- vasiveness have added a new dimension. The previous decade was characterized by tremendous growth and development in higher education. Enrollments doubled and expenditures trebled. In 1963, total enroll- ment in institutions Of higher education was 4.8 million, and expenditures were $9.1 billion. By 1973 there were 9.6 million students and institutions were Spending over 48 $27.9 billion dollars anually to educate them. During these years the baby boom generation reached college age 34 and an increasing prOportion Of them sought admission to higher education institutions. With the lifetime income Of a male college graduate 63 percent greater than that Of a high school graduate, education was viewed as the key tO the good life.49 By 1970 expenditures were rising faster than in- creases in income and signs Of financial stress were apparent everywhere.50 The metaphors of the "steady state" and Of "running in place" came into pOpular usage as insti- tutions sought simply to maintain existing Operations. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education identified four separate forces that had brought about this financial pressure, growth in enrollments, growth in the complexity Of functions performed by educational institutions, increases in educational costs per student, and changes in the course Of funding.51 Other highly significant factors in rising costs were the increase in graduate students as a prOportion of total enrollment. Additionally, the institutions had responded to the demand for greater equality of Oppor- tunity in education by increased expenditures on student aid and by developing Special programs to facilitate participation in higher education of students with less than adequate preparation.52 Inflation, poor management, and the 1972-74 economic recession also have had their impact on the fiscal situa- tion. The 1977-78 Consumer Price Index was 176 while the Higher Education Price Index was 188.7. Between 1954-67, moreover, expenditures increased at an average annual rate of 11.7 percent in current dollars and 7.7 percent in 35 1957-58 dollars while credit hours increased at an 8 percent rate. Thus inflation accounted for approximately 3.7 per- cent Of this cost increase while real costs actually fell by 0.3 percent.53 Exacerbating the problem is the apparent leveling Off Of the percentage Of the 18-24 population attending college and the predictions of actual decline of full-time college students by the 19805.54 In 1976, the full time equivalent enrollment in all higher education institutions was 8.3 million. By 1986 the intermediate and low projections are 8.9 and 7.9 million students respectively.55 The diminishing demand for higher education by the traditional student has made it necessary for the post- secondary system tO expand to other markets. Enter the adult learner. Over the last two decades there has been an increase in both the numbers Of adults participating in education and the general awareness Of their participation.56 Surveys made in 1957, 1969, 1972, and 1975 for the National Center for Educational Statistics show a substantial increase in adults participating in organized educational activities over these years. The estimates from these surveys are presented in Table 2.9, compared with the enrollment and participation rate for all higher education for the same years. Between 1969 and 1972 the growth rate for the college 36 TABLE 2.9.--Adu1t Participation in Organized Educational Activities. Adult Education Total % Of Enrollments 18-24 Participants % Of (000) POpulation (000) POpulation 1957 3,047 20.2 8,270 7.6 1969 7,484 31.5 13,041 10.0 1972 8,265 31.9 15,734 11.3 1975 8,665* 31.4 17,059 11.6 *Estimate Source: National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition Of Education, 1976. age cohort was only about 0.4 percent per year while the adult participation rate had grown from 2.8 percent between 1957-69 to 4.4 percent by 1972.57 The increase in adult participation in formal edu- cational programs, however, is only partially indicative Of actual involvement in educational activities. Most Of the learning that adults engage in occurs on the periphery Of the educational system, defined by Moses as organized structured learning situations outside of traditional schools. He estimates the learning force to be about 149 million with 82 million people in this educational periph- ery.58 Another study by the College Board found that 50 percent Of the adults over age twenty-five sampled had participated in formal or informal educational activity, 59 during a one year period. An even more extravagent esti- mate, however, is made by Allen Tough, who maintains that 37 98 percent of all adults engage in some form Of systemati- cally planned learning activity each year.60 One obvious reason for the increase in demand for educational Opportunities is that adults are simply becoming older and more numerous. The lower fertility rates that began in the sixties holds the magnitude Of the next generation in check and that baby boom cohort keeps getting Older. By the year 2000 the median age Of the U.S. popula- tion is estimated to be 34.8. In 1975 it was 28.8 years.61 Societal change brought about by increasing tech- nological development has also affected the demand for further education. Jobs are being redesigned and eliminated, making skills updating and training necessary for a sub- stantial portion Of the labor force. Job mobility, further- more, is becoming more horizontal than vertical and more peOple are changing careers in midlife.62 The changing role of women has also had its impact. As more women decide to move into the labor market there is greater need for some form Of education to help ease their entry or re-entry. Over the last two decades there has been a 74 percent increase in the number of women in the labor force. For men the increase has been only 19 percent.63 The increased mechanization Of work and its lack of fulfillment and challenge will move people to seek this in other activities, including education. Moreover, reduction in the work week and early retirement Options provide adults 38 with more time free from work, some of which will be used for learning endeavors.64 Reaching the Adult Learner Over the years major policy statements about higher education have consistently stressed the need to serve this 65 The 1971 and 1973 Newman Reports urged new constituency. educators and policy-makers to enlarge their concepts of "who can be a student, and when, and what a college is." The report strongly recommended the need for alternative 66 The Carnegie Commission on Higher educational Offerings. Education, the most comprehensive and influential assess- ment of the state and future Of higher education,67 likewise suggested that post-secondary education diversify and become comparatively less concerned with a minority Of the young and give more attention to the "majority Of all ages."68 But to serve these new students prOperly, to attract them as customers, higher education needs to develop new ways of teaching and Of doing business. Admissions, finan- cial aids, course schedules, program requirements and counseling are not designed for the person who has work and family obligations that take precedence over classes. Adults generally know what they want and need to learn. They have little patience with requirements which they feel are irrelevant to their goals and circumstances.69 The methods and models for accomplishing these changes have been prOposed, tested, modified and documented. 70 The Commission on Non-Traditional Study and various 39 71 have reported at length on the educational journals emergence Of new, nontraditional forms of education, con- tract learning, external degrees, universities without walls, televised courses, educational brokering and recognition of prior learning in awarding credit are examples Of programs geared for the adult student. Unfortunately, the need to develOp and implement these and other models Of education for this new clientele has occurred during a period of fiscal stasis. A posture of no growth reduces flexibility and makes being sensitive to changing needs a luxury. Summary Meeting the needs Of adult learners is well within the purposes of foundation philanthrOpy.» Support of the new and the innovative and responding to unmet needs has been the chosen direction of foundations to higher education for the last twenty-five years. The extent to which foundations have supported efforts to meet this new educational need is unknown. NO analysis of foundation grants for nontraditional and adult education has been published. A review Of dissertation research uncovered only one study, completed in 1971, of foundation support for continuing professional education.72 The need for more research into patterns of foundation giving has been frequently stated. It is the purpose of this study to provide further analysis of the foundation 40 field through an examination of grant-making activities directed toward the educational needs Of adults. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction For constructive thinking about practical affairs knowledge Of the existing situation is essential.1 Competition for foundation grants is intense. To be successful, therefore, potential recipients must know which foundations have demonstrated a commitment to their particular problems or areas Of need. Descriptive research provides this information. It also helps fill a general need peOple have to know what the world is like, to live in it, to try and understand it.2 Objectives Of This Study Although the specific questions addressed by this study were given in Chapter I, the primary Objective can be summarized here as follows: To identify and analyze the extent and type of con- tinuing and nontraditional education activities funded from 1973 through 1978 by a selection Of the major, general purpose foundations, including those that specify adult education as an area Of Special interest Grant seekers and others can use the information Of this study to assess foundations' commitment to, and specialized 41 42 interests within, the particular field Of continuing and nontraditional education. Informed decisions can, there- fore, be made in planning their search for foundation funds. This type of independent research, analyzing patterns of foundation grant-making activity in Special areas, is virtually nonexistent, except for those few studies mentioned in the literature review. While the foundations' tradition Of privacy is partly responsible, it was not until the 19705 that the public had access to a system designed to collect and make the necessary data available. A secondary Objec- tive, therefore, emerges from this study. This Objective, stated as another research question is as follows: How adequate are the publicly available sources Of foundation grants information for research into their grant-making activities? The Foundation Grants Index Data Base The Foundation Center was established in 1956 to gather and disseminate factual information on the philanthro- pic foundations through programs Of library service, publi- cations and research. Its major purposes, considered equally important, are: l. to be a useful resource for anyone interested in applying to grant making foundations for funds. 2. to compile reliable descriptive data and statistics on the foundation field for the use Of foundation trustees and Officers, regulating agencies, and other interested organizations and individuals.3 43 The Foundation Grants Index (FGI) is the primary vehicle Of the Foundation Center for providing information about foundation grants. Its data base contains information on foundation grants of $5,000 or more in all subject areas for approximately 500 Of the largest foundations. It covers grants from 1973 to the present and contains over 90,000 individual grant records from participating foundations. The FGI listings function as a current awareness service for those organizations and foundations interested in grants representative Of current giving within particular funding areas.4 Because it is the sole repositor Of collective information on foundation giving, it was used in the data source for this study. Study Guidelines In developing methods and procedures for this pro- ject the following set of rules were developed to set some parameters and guide the researcher in making methodological decisions. A. Selecting the Foundations 1. Foundations selected for this study were to be among the largest general purpose foundations independent Of corporate financial support, i.e., excluding corporate foundations. 2. Each foundation had to be a grant-making founda- tion with a history Of funding to higher edu- cation. 3. All short-term funding priorities Of each foun- dation were to be examined to insure that con- tinuing and nontraditional activities fell within their guidelines. 44 B. Collecting and Analyzing Data 1. The study would cover the period from 1973, the first year for the FGI, to 1978, the last year of complete information at the time the data was collected. 2. Only grants Of $5,000 or more were to be anal- yzed. This is the minimum level for FGI grant listings. 3. The scope of the FGI search was to include all grants of the selected foundations for continuing and nontraditional education activities. A list of terms, called descrip- tOrs, was developed to identify these activ- ities in the FGI. 4. A special code was developed for classifying and analyzing all grants using the Indecks Research System. Grants not meeting the cri- teria for classification were eliminated from this study. 5. The Annual Reports of three Of the selected foundations were examined and the grant list- ings were compared with those from the FGI using the decision rules and criteria devel- Oped herein. The amplification and application Of these decision rules is detailed in the following sections of this chapter. Selecting the Foundations The foundations in this study were drawn from the population Of 500 foundations that submit details Of the grant-making activities to the Foundation Grants Index Data Base (FGI). These foundations represent the largest Of the grant-making foundations in both assets and yearly grant payments. The sample was selected by first identifying those independent and community foundations whose annual giving 45 in 1973 and 1978 was at least $2.5 and $5 million dollars respectively. These figures account for approximately 30 percent of total foundation giving. Twenty-five foun- dations met this criteria for both years.5 Another criteria for inclusion in this study was that all foundations have a history Of making program grants to higher education. Six foundations were there- fore eliminated because they did not make program grants; did not give grants to higher education; or had identified narrow funding priorities that Obviously excluded grants relevant to this study.6 This initial sample of nineteen was subsequently reduced to fifteen because four founda- tions did not provide grant information for the FGI.7 According to the Foundation Directory only three foundations indicate a special interest in Adult Education. All three, Mott, Kellogg and Lilly, met the above criteria. The fifteen foundations that were studied are listed below. Unless otherwise indicated, the dollar figures cited are for 1978 and are in thousands of dollars.8 The Carnegie Corporation of New York. Established, 1911 Assets: $284,799 Grant Payments: $13,096 Chicago Community Trust. Established, 1915. Assets: $100,194 Grant Payments: $4,065 (1977) The Edna McConnell-Clark Foundation. Established in 1950 in New York and in 1969 in Delaware, merged in 1974. Assets: $192,000 Grant Payments: $10,650 The Cleveland Foundation. Established in 1914 as the first community foundation. Assets: $188,413 Grant Payments: $9,576 (1977) 46 The Ford Foundation. Established in 1936, in Michigan, now in New York. Assets: $2,291,480 Grant Payments: $21,041 The Lily Endowment. Established in 1937 in Indiana. Assets: $653,368 Grant Payments: $21,681 The W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Established in 1930 in Michigan. Assets: $827,223 Grant Payments: $41,656 The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Established in 1940 as the Avalon Foundation, incorporated in New York in 1954. Merged with Old Dominion Foundation and renamed in 1969. Assets: $705,396 Grant Payments: $42,681 The Charles S. Mott Foundation. Established, 1926, in Michigan. Assets: $396,247 Grant Payments: $28,453 The New York Community Trust. Established, 1923. Assets: $211,530 Grant Payments: $19,180 (1977) The William Penn Foundation. Established in 1945 as the Haas Foundation in Delaware. Grants to Pittsburgh and Western Penn. Assets: $66,977 Grant Payments: $6,018 The Rockefeller Foundation. Established, 1913. Assets: $753,911 Grant Payments: $42,535 The San Francisco Foundation. Established, 1947. Assets: $54,326 Grant Payments: $6,318 (1977) The Sarah Scaife Foundation. Established, 1941, in Pennsylvania. Assets: $77,614 Grant Payments: $5,606 The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Established, 1934. Assets: $244,600 Grant Payments: $13,437 Data Collection The information for this study was Obtained through a customized search Of the FGI. This data base is accessed through Lockheed's DIALOG Information Retrieval Service. The DIALOG system, using the BOlOOlean retrieval method, called for the computer to scan all grant listings for 47 certain descriptors that would identify grants to be included in the print-out. The computer was also given descriptors that, if also contained in the grant listing would exclude that grant from the search. The minimum grant level was accepted because a 1971 study by the American Council on Education found that foundation sup- port tO higher education in the large gift category ($5000) is more than seven times that of transactions under that amount and that for most higher education institutions, 2 percent of their transactions raise 55 percent of all private source income.9 The grant listing, detailed in Figure 3.1, shows all the possible grant information. Not all grants con- tain the same amount of data. Minimally, however, each listing included the name and location of the foundation and the recipient, the amount Of the grant, the date it was authorized, a description Of the grants purpose or profile Of the recipient, and the FGI key words and main and sub-categories. Ms. Janice Whitkins, a Foundation Center staff member responsible for FGI research, was consulted in for- mulating the search. The scope Of the search was defined as follows: Identify and provide a print-out for all grants authorized from 1973 through 1978 for support of nontraditional and continuing education programs and activities from a sample Of fifteen independent and community foundations. ‘48 .xmoca mucmuo :Oaumossom mnu HON muscooun o>aumauommo Houcoo ucmuo :Oaumossom "mousom .xmoCH mucouo SOHDMOSSOE on» Eoum ocaumaa ucouo mamemmu|.a.m ousoam cOauMaSQOQ ummume max» usuadaoom xuomoumouosm, xuoooumo Sam: .Esmmaz “mom03 flux Esomse Acm0aumE¢o coaoca\TMaoca cocaume< onoooon no mess mzommoz "um_ mmnenzua>auoo oo ouam at .maca:UI.ucmum azanoumz .mcmaoca.cmoauOE< .Esoms: ”moamomm nomnosm N "zoa94mao .mm> . :hh\~\a .SOauo>ummmm moans Emacs um moon Esmmse Oaasomu OB omuauonusm mama .illlllllltlu CO .um>coo .ucmEuumomo muomuauué coaocH .SOausuaumsH ooo3oom Ou ooo.m~m >2 .coeooocooo ..< econ. oooonouooom nowaeha OSSOE< SOauMOOa ocm mEmc ucoamaoom COauMOOa pom mam: SOaumocsom Monaco 50ammmoo< 49 Specific Inclusions 1. Identify grants relevant to this study through the use Of the following descriptors: a. 9. Continuing Education adult education G.E.D. adult basic education lifelong learning recurrent education professional development career development Training (all types) retraining internships service-learning Community Education extension programs leadership development Education Resource Center education brokers learning resource centers education information center External Degree Program credit-by-examination university without walls homestudy, televised classes, correspondence courses Other Nontraditional Education alternative education Open learning/education contract learning experiential education Guidance and Counseling All recipient organizations and institutions are to be included. Grants serving the following populations groups should be included. adults and adult learners/students nontraditional learners/students women minorities: Blacks, Hispanics, Amerindians elderly/aged part-time students, mid-career changers 4. 50 Programs and activities research and demonstration projects program planning and development program implementation and Operation program evaluation conferences, seminars and workshops on the subject of continuing and nontraditional education Restrictions 1. A copy Report only those grants authorized for the six year period beginning January 1, 1973 and ending December 31, 1978. Report grants only from the following foundations: Carnegie Corporation Of New York Chicago Community Trust Clark Foundation Cleveland Foundation The Ford Foundation W. K. Kellogg Foundation The Lilly Endowment A. Mellon Foundation C. S. Mott Foundation New York Community Trust William Penn Foundation The Rockefeller Foundation San Francisco Foundation Sarah Scaife Foundation The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Exclude all grants serving youth, children, adoles- cents, boys, girls, elementary schools, secondary or high schools. Exclude grants for guildings, equipment, renova- tion, capital improvements, construction, scholar- ships and endowments. Of the computer search listing the descriptors is included in Appendix A. The broad list Of thirty-three descriptors was developed out Of seven original categories of continuing and nontraditional education grants. Due to the confusion 51 in terminology that exists within continuing and nontra- ditional education fields, this resulted in the positive identification of some grants not relevant to this study because the computer scanned the entire grant listing in searching for the words that formed the descriptors. For example: Ford Foundation, NY $10,000 to Portland State University, Portland, OR. for development of joint university-city-county project in Portland, 7/76 SOURCE: 8/1/76 NL C: 1.3b MC: EDUCATION SC: HIGHER EDUCATION (SPECIAL PROJECTS) KEY WORDS: University, community development. Chicago Community Trust, IL $17,000 to Community Renewal Society, Chicago Reporter, Chicago, IL 6/77 PROFILE: Continuing support SOURCE: 7/1/77 NR C: 1.9 MC: EDUCATION SC: COMMUNICATIONS KEY WORDS: Community reporter In the Ford Foundation grant the computer picked up MC: EDUCATION and the key word, "community" to form the descriptor, Community Education. In the second case, the word "continuing" in the PROFILE, was combined with MC: EDUCATION. The search for the FGI produced 577 grant listings. Grants not relevant to the study were eliminated if they: 1. were not made by one Of the fifteen foundatipns; 2. were not authorized between 1973 and 1978; 3. did not contain within their descriptions any of the descriptors used in coding the grants pur- poses; 4. were made for school-age children; 52 5. were for buildings, equipment, endowment, scholar- ship, renovation, Or capital construction. Decisions regarding the elimination of grants were made in the process Of coding them for analysis. Methods of Analysis To facilitate analysis of the grants, the IndecksC 10 This is a simple data Research System was utilized. processing system that is designed for recording, coding and retrieval Of all types Of research. One Indecks card was used for each grant. On the periphery Of the card are 110 numbered holes which the researcher assigned to correspond to information within the grant listings. This code was recorded on special Code Cards. The appropriate holes were notched out if they contained the information or left alone if they did not. The deck of cards was then aligned, a sorting rod passed through a numbered hole, and the notched cards fell out and were retrieved. The notching was done by the researcher with one trained assistant. Copies of the Code Cards and sample grant cards are in Appendix B. The procedure that was used in classifying grant information is described below. Donor Foundation and Year of Grant: Fifteen holes were utilized to correspond to each of the foundations in the sample. Six holes were assigned for each of the six years of the study. 53 Duration Of Grant: Like the foundation and the year the grant was authorized, this was also indicated on the grant listing. Holes were assigned for grants Of one, two, three, and four or more years duration. If this information was not indicated it was notched as a one- year grant. Half years were rounded downward. Amount Of Grant: The exact amount Of each grant is given on each listing. These amounts were divided into five groups and notched accordingly. a. over $250,000 b. 100,000-250,000 c. 50,001-100,000 d. 10,001- 50,000 e. 10,000 and below Recipient: Each grant listing provided the name of the recipient organization or institution. In most cases the type Of recipient was evident by its name. Recipients were divided into seven classifications: public higher education institution private higher education institution community or junior college school systems and local Boards Of Education educational organizations other non-profit organizations State Boards Of Departments Of Education \IONU'MbOJNH The public or private status of higher education institu- tions was determined by consulting the College Handbook.11 A non-profit organization was classified as educational if any Of the following terms or their derivatives were used in its title: education, university, college, school, teach, instruction, learning. 54 Purposes Of the Grant: The list Of descriptors developed in identifying appropriate grants in the FGI was used as the basis for classifying the primary purposes Of each grant. Seven major types of grant purposes sub- sume the original thirty-three descriptors. These divisions were each assigned a holefon the Indecks card. Each grant listing was read to identify the descriptors. When the purpose description of a grant did not contain any Of the descriptors the researcher made a subjective decision regarding the appropriateness Of the grant for this study and its classification, using her own knowledge of the subject matter. In this way new descriptors were added to the classification list. All grants rejected by the coding assistant were also reviewed in this manner. The descrip- tors and their major classifications are presented in Figure 3.2. Two other types Of purpose classifications were made tO provide further details concerning the grants. Although all the grants were concerned with adult learners, there have been certain groups Of adults who have received special attention. Five holes were assigned to classify special client groups if they were indicated in the grant listing. These were racial minorities, women, the elderly, the handicapped, and "others." The final item Of information concerned the nature Of the activities funded. Again drawing on the original Classification of Grant Purpose Continuing Education Training Community Education Education Resources Center External Degree Program Other Nontraditional Education Guidance 55 Descriptors adult education G.E.D. adult basic education lifelong learning recurrent education professional development career development high school equivalency* faculty development* Training, retraining (all types) service learning apprenticeship* internships work-learning experience* community education extension programs leadership development educational brokers learning resources center educational resources center education information center educational services center* credit-by-examination University without walls homestudy televised courses correspondence courses televised study* credit-for-prior experience] learning Off-campus learning alternative education/learning Open/learning/education contract learning nontraditional learning/educa- tion experiential education counseling guidance advision* career changing* *Denotes descriptors added in the process of classifying and coding grant listings. Figure 3.2.--Primary Classifications of Grant Purposes. 56 descriptors, holes were assigned to correspond with grants being used for: conferences, workshops and seminars program planning and development research and evaluation program Operations degree programs non-degree programs partial continuing education use This last classification, "partial continuing educa- tion use" was used to designate grants that had combined purposes only part Of which fit the criteria for inclusion in this study. Many Of these grants were for Community Education, which is a concept that has elements of adult education but is much more encompassing. It was soon apparent, however, that many grants did not provide sufficient description to permit this type Of secondary classification. It therefore was not used as part of the results analysis. Examples Of grant cards coded under this procedure are included in Appendix B. Most Of the grants were rejected because their pur- poses were inappropriate to this study. There were, however, a number Of grants from the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation that had erroneously been included. Only the Rockefeller Foundation was included in the foundations selected for study. 57 m The Foundation Grants Index data base was the pri- mary instrument used in this study. Data was collected on continuing and nontraditional education grants made by a selection Of fifteen top independent foundations for the six year period, 1973-1978. Grants made by these founda- tions were selected by a computer scan Of all grant list- ings for descriptors which identified these activities. Five hundred seventy-seven grants were identified in the FGI search. Of these, 143 were not appropriate to this study. These grants were eliminated during the coding process according to decision rules developed for this study. Indecks research cards were used to code and anal- yze information regarding donor foundations, recipients, year Of award, amounts and grant purposes. Because the FGI is a relatively new vehicle for collecting and analyzing information regarding foundation grants, its adequacy as a research tool was also a concern to this project. The grant listings in the Annual Reports of three foundations were, therefore, compared with the grant listings provided by the FGI using the decision rules and criteria developed here. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction The grants Obtained in this study were analyzed from three perspectives: donor foundations, recipients and grant purposes. Aggregate and individual levels Of foun- dation giving to continuing and nontraditional education were examined as well as yearly variations and total U.S. contributions. Special attention was directed at the level and nature Of support made by Mott, Kellogg and Lilly, foundations who are on record as being interested in the field of adult education. The types of institutions and organizations receiv- ing grants and the kinds Of activities funded were the two other approaches taken in this analysis. Investigation was directed not only at general categories Of recipients and purposes but also at specific recipients and special projects within the broader classifications. The usefulness Of the FGI as a data source for grants research was the fourth perspective for analysis, as shortcomings Of the data base became apparent. The 58 59 adequacy Of the FGI and other sources Of information was examined in detail. The different perspectives for viewing this study correspond to the more specific research questions formed in the first chapter. Presentation of this analysis has therefore been organized around those questions. Levels Of Foundation Contributions What has been the magnitude of support for continuing and nontraditional education activities among founda- tions in this study? Has there been any yearly vari- ation in foundation support for these activities? What has been the level Of foundation commitment to this area as a proportion Of their annual domestic contributions? Four hundred thirty-four (434) grants were made over the six year period by the fifteen foundations in the study. The total apprOpriation came to$56,799,643. Three hundred fifty-eight (358) Of these grants, or 82.5 percent came from five foundations, Mott, Kellogg, Ford, Lilly, and Carnegie. Three other foundations, Cleveland, Rocke- feller, and San Francisco provided an additional forty- two grants. These eight foundations account for 95 percent Of all appropriations, just over $54 million. The remain- ing foundations in the sample, Penn, Clark, Mellon, Sloan, Chicago, and New York Community Trust, each gave fewer than twelve grants over the six years, totaling only thirty- four grants and $2,781,245. These foundations will not be individually detailed in this report. NO grants were reported from the Sarah Scaife Foundation. 60 Table 4.1 provides the number of grants and dollar amounts appropriated by the foundations for each year of the study. The Mott and Kellogg foundations provided the most support to continuing and nontraditional activities. Mott exceeded Kellogg over two to one in the number Of grants, giving 168 awards over five years to Kellogg's 71 grants over six years. Kellogg's actual appropriation however was much larger, over $23.4 million compared to Mott's $13.3 million. These two foundations alone account for 64.7 percent of all donated dollars and 55 percent of all grants in the study. The Ford Foundation was third in both number and amount of grant appropriations making forty-six awards totaling almost $5.4 million. Ford was followed by the Lilly Endowment and the Carnegie Corporation of New York which respectively gave forty-three grants for $4.6 million and thirty grants for $4.5 million in appropriations. With few exceptions the rank order Of these five foundations was remarkably consistent for each year Of the study. In 1973 Mott was not a participant in the FGI. That year Kellogg's appropriation was 48.3 percent of the total, Carnegie's was 20.5 percent and the Lilly Endowments was 15.1 percent. In 1974 Lilly provided 25.1 percent to Ford's 15.5 percent and Mott's 12.9 percent of that year's appropriations. By 1975, however, the leadership ranking was established for the remaining four years of the study. 61 LIEU”. . «.H oofi o.e m.o m.o~ a.a o.m~ m.~ m.m m.me n.v ucwuuwm mao.m aHo on oom mo ano.~ com Nom mam.m nae cOaumaudOudd< ooa ~.e w.m o.m ~.v o.mv ~.e o.aa o.oa m.m ucw0umm Ne n N v m mm m a ma m mucmuo «0 umossz Shea oo~ o.m ~.a n.a m.o m.o~ o.m m.m m.~m e.a ucooumd oma.mH ooh eoa emm on oem.m ~mo mun mmm.o mma ceaumauQOuddd ooH o.Oa o.v o.~ o.~ o.mv o.oa o.v o.oa o.m unmouod ooa ca e N m av ea c oa m mucouo uo nonesz ohma oo~ o.o o.o e.~ m.a n.o~ S.v n.5a ~.am ~.m ucoouom meo.ma own no oam aha ~mv.n mao oo~.~ ano.e eo~.a :Oaumaudouad¢ ooa c.0a o.~ o.m o.o o.n~ o.~a o.ma o.ea o.m acousmm o0a ca N m o hm ~a ma ea w mucouo mo uoossz mnma 00a m.a a.a o.a o o.~a a.m~ m.ma m.m~ o.ma unmoumd non.o ems no nNH o neo.n ano.~ ~e~.n Hen.~ eno.a coaooeuoonoo¢ sea a.Ma o.o o.v o.a m.a~ n.ma m.¢ m.aa m.aa ucm0uwm Ho m e m a ma Na o n h mucmuo mo awoesz vuma OOa o.o I u ~.a n a.ma o.m m.o¢ m.o~ unmouom emo.o nae o o me . nan nne anm.m ae~.n coauonooouoo< ooa o.m n u o.m n m.a~ b.ea ~.mm o.o~ ucoouod em m o o m c v v ma 5 mucmuo mo nonesz nnma amuoe muozuo oomwmmmum uofiaoomxoom occaw>oao uuoz >aaaa ouou vocaaox oaoocuoo “VII Illrlll- .Iil .Aooo. mumaaoo mo mocmmsozu ca chauoaudouddt .mnmanmnma mcoaumocsom oouowamm scum mucmuo ceaumosom aMSOauaomuucoz can moascauSOOIa.a.v manna €52 ooa a.v h.o m.m 5.0 m.m~ N.o m.m N.ae m.e ucoouwd oom.om aoe.N mac eom.a Nan mnm.Ma oeo.v ooe.m an.MN cam.v SOauMaudoumd< ooa m.e o.m o.m v.m e.om m.m o.oa m.oa ¢.o unmouwm vmv em ma ea ma moa me ow an on mucmuo uo nonEsz amuoa umor o ooa I N.o v.v u m.av N.N N.a o.me o.m uswuuom oen.e o mm mnn n ooa.n non om emn.n men acaooanoonoo< oOa a v.a m.N o.va e.mo m.N m.e v.Ma m.v usoouom no 0 a N a we N m o m mucouc mo umnEsz mema amuoe mumnuo oomwwmwum umaamumxoom occam>OaU uuoz >aaaa ouom vaaaox maoocumo I il. a” '1' '11! ' I «.l.:l 11“.- [fl ill-2|- .oooeeoeoo--.n.e manna 63 An interesting pattern seemed to emerge when the aggregated data for the six year period was examined. Between 1973 and 1974 the number Of grants jumped from thirty-four to sixty-one, an increase of 44.3 percent with a 27 percent increase in dollars. As discussed in Chapter II, 1973 was the year Of publication for two major studies on future directions for higher education, The Newman Report II and most Of the reports of the Carnegie Commis- sion on Higher Education. Both studies advocated increased attention to the program and service needs Of adult learners. In 1975 there was another jump of 39 percent in grants and 38 percent in appropriations from the previous year. This small spurt Of activity seems to have peaked by 1976 when 100 grants were made for a total Of $13,155,774. The last years Of the study show a substantial decline in both number and amounts of grant dollars, drOpping 28 and 34 percent beginning in 1977. This "trend" however, evaporated upon closer exami- nation Of individual foundation activities in each Of those years. For example, half of the 1974 increase in the number Of grants was due simply to the addition of Mott Foundation data which had not been included in 1973. As reported, Kellogg grants actually dropped that year although the decrease was Offset by Lilly whose awards increased substantially. The remaining twelve grants for 1974 were spread among the "bottom eight" foundations in the study. 64 In 1975, Mott, Ford and Kellogg more than doubled the number of grants they gave in 1974. This accounts for 74 percent Of the thirty-nine new grants. In 1976, 49 percent Of all grants awarded can be attributed solely to Mott, offsetting substantial drops by Ford, Carnegie, and Cleveland. Table 4.1 also shows that similar distortion occurred in the dollar appropriations, where the immense fiscal leadership Of Kellogg and Mott dwarfs the monetary awards made by other foundations in the study. An examination Of individual foundation's grants as a proportion of their total U.S. giving showed the same sort Of leadership domination by Kellogg and Mott. The Foundation Center had estimated total foundation grants to the area of Adult Education at approximately 2 percent Of total foundation philanthropy.l As indicated in Table 4.2, however, only three foundations exceeded that figure for this, more broadly defined, study. Kellogg and Mott gave 15.5 percent and 14.5 percent of their six year total of U.S. appropriations to continuing and nontraditional education, followed by Carnegie at 5.8 percent. Both 1975 and 1976 were major years for grants with these three foundations. Although the Ford Foundation, whose total annual grant payments is greater than most foundation's assets, gave only 0.6 percent Of their six year appropriation for this subject, it amounted to 3.1 percent of their Education 65 ooumommm com a.m m.o a.N e.N a.N m.e N.a coaumosom mo ucooumm o.o I m.o o.o m.H o.0 N.o HMDOB MO UCOOHOQ . . . mooum many ooe m cm Nom men ooN N amN a Noe Eoum mucmuo e e e e o e e mufimHU SOHmmmmm Nmo aea Nom ea mmN eN mma mN eao am can mN meN mm ocm SOnmeDom . . . . . . . mGOaDMaumoumod hem oem mea moa mee mm ooo ema Nee Nea mNN QNN oaN oaN usmuc amuoe ouom m.ma N.oa N.Na m.mN e.aN a.ea N.Na usmouom . . . . . . . mooum menu mNe MN emm m mam m mmm o aeo e amm N aNm N Eoum musmuw . . . . . . . msoaumauoouddd mme oma maa mm mem am mow oN Noe ma Noo ea woe mN ucmuo amuoa mmOaamM m.m e.m m.m o.a m.m N.e e.m usoouom . . . . modem was» oam e mem mae mma eoN a owe a aeN a EOHM musmuo . . . . . . . mSOaumaHoouomm awe he omN aa amm aa mme aa mam Na MNo ma amm ea nacho amuoa oamosumo amuoe How» o whoa eema oema mema mema mema lll'ii on monsoon .nemannema .Aooo. nnoaaoo «0 monomooru .chaumaumoumm< usmuo msOaumossom amSOa>aosH unmam mo SOauuomOHm m mm mucosa cOauwosom amsoauaomuucoz ocm moaSSaDSOOI:.N.e magma 66 e.o a m.o v.0 o.N u o.a a ucoouom 5 ma Nmm m mm mm aea o me Ewuwmmummwo . . . . . . . mGOHumaumoummd mmm mm omN oa oeo oa mmm oa emm o omm o oom e uswuo amuos occao>mau m.ea a.m o.Na m.eN a.NN o.m ucooumm . . . . . . meson menu mmm ma ooa m meo N oem m Nmm m meo a 809m musmuo mood mammoumm moo.am emm.em mmm.oa mmm.Na Nme.ma oam.aa * .wcmuw amuMB Duo: m.a o.a a.a o.a a.a m.m m.a w unmouom 5 ma meo.e moa eON Nmo mao amo.N ham Emuwmmummwo mSOn mammoumm Noo.meN Nem.oa oem.ea mNo.Ne aNo.mm mmm.mm eNm.am .wsmuo amuMB waaaa amuoa “mow o mema eema oema mema eema mema .oooonuooouu.~.e manna 67 .mhma MOM Hum mop Ca ooouooou no: mmB mumo 50aumossom one: .m .04 .muuomom amsscm m.cOaumo550m amsoa>aoca Eouo cwxmu mcoaumauooumom ucmum SOaumossom "moousom e.a N.o m.a N.m m.a o.a a ucoouom osuw wasp mae ma me eoa me em 0 Eoum musmuu . . . . . . . mSOaumaumouom¢ mme om eoe m emo o eao m MNe m eve m eme e usmuo amuoe oomaocmum 5mm o.o m.o m.N m.o e.o m.o > usooumm osum wasp emm.a mNm omm eNN oam mNa o Eoum mucmuo . . . . . . . chaumanQouodd emo oeN aam oe oae am Now Ne oem ae eoa Ne NeN oe usmno amuoa uoaaomoxoom awuoe now» o mema eema oema mema eema mema .ooooaoooouu.n.e manna 68 and Research program budget. This, in dollar figures, is more analogous to other foundation's total grants. Types of Grant Recipients What types Of institutions and organizations have been recipients Of foundation grants for continuing and nontraditional education activities? As a recipient of foundation grants in this area, how does higher education compare with other institutions and organi- zations in the level Of support they have received? To what extent have individual recipients been awarded multiple grants for continuing and nontraditional edu- cation activities? The Foundation Center estimates that roughly 25 percent Of all foundation grants are for higher education purposes. Higher education institutions, however, as recipients Of foundation grants for all purposes receive a much larger share of foundation contributions.2 In this study higher education institutions, on the average, received 60.6 percent of all grants and 63.7 percent of all dollars appropriated. The variation, shown in Tables 4.3 and 4.4 ranged from a high Of 74.4 percent from Mott, to a low of 15.4 percent from the San Francisco Foundation. Of all the foundations, only Carnegie and Lilly show any marked emphasis for private higher education institutions. The Carnegie Corporation which has spoken out in favor Of alternative providers of educational Opportunities for adults other than higher education, nonetheless, gave 50 percent Of their grants to higher education institu- tions. Forty percent Of their grants went to educational SOaumosom mo moumom mumum . . . . . mSOaumnasmeo m m oa o aa m o ma m o m e o o N pawoumucoz Hoopo a.e Na o.ma m N.NN ma e.mN ma o.oe Na mSOaUMNacmmuo .osom m.m oa meumwm aoooom n.n n u I u n n.n m n.n a noooaaoo moaoossoo 9 6 . Idli II Idll II Ifill II Idli. II .Osom Hwomam e ee mNa a mo mN N Nm eN N oo ee 0 om ma mwmquamuouosm . . . . . 50apmosom m ea mN m mm eN e aN .oa m ma aa m mm oa nonmam mum>aum . . . . . coaumosom a em om m m e e om ea e om om o oa m nonmam oaansm Illl II IIII ll Illl II .IIII ll mpsmno mo wooa moa wooa me Nooa oe wooa ae Nooa om mmmmmm ”amuoa mono: manna noon mooaaos wamoonoo .mucoaoaoom usmuo :0aumosom aMGOauaowHusoz com mcassau50011.m.e magma 70 .oooo nema mooaooa no: oo naoooo neauooooom noose . 50aumosom e o m I I I I I I I I mo moumom opmum . . . . . mSOaumNacmmHO o mm mm n nn mm m nm e n en n o o a oenonoIeoz nonoo ¢.mH em m.wN m H.MN m OImN v m.mm m mCOHUMNHCMUHO .UDOM O.® cm I l h.h H ©.mN v OION m meUmww HOOSOW e.a o m.m a I I I I I I mononaoo moaoossoo I.I.I II JII II III I I.II I I4! I doom 8:3: n on non n nn an e mm m o me e m mn o Han "announom . . . . eoeooooom n we em n nm n I I e an n n na m nonoam moo>ano . . . . . coaumosom n on non m an e e ma n a e a e on e nonoam onaooo IIII. III Illl II llll II III! II IIII. ll mucmuo mo noon e e noon en ween na noon ea noon ma mmmamm "amuoe oomnocmum mamuoe muoouo mom Smaawooxoom onwao>oau .ooSSHDSOOII.m.e manna 71 O.N moN soaumosom mo moumom oumum . . . . . . msoaumnasmmuo o n Noe m ea nnm e mN men a o N ooo o o mmN unmonoIooz nonuo . . . . . . . . n mSOaumNasmmHo o m eoN a n on ene n nN eon a n nN on n 0 on com a amooaumooom a.aa oev.a N.m vVN mEmummm aoosum o.o Nan n.N oen m.a no noooaaoo nonesseoo . . . . . . . . . . .ooom nooonm o Ne aae m m cm Nam N a me eme N o mo emN on n an eNn N mam."aouounom . e o e o o e o s COflum Ugvm n ma moo N o nn eoe N o oa mom e na men n 0 on nNo a Moron: oum>auo n.e N o.e . o o.on No. m.n o .N . eonuoooom n e n e en a a n an a n na aoe Hooves oaanom noon nnn.nan noon meo.en noon ooe.nn noon NNe.nNn nooa mon.en ”amuoe «poo: manna noon mooaaos onmonnoo .Aooov mumaaoo mo mocmmsona ca moudmam .musmuo soaumosom amcoauaomuusoz ocm ocassausoo mo magmamaowm on msoaumaumoummcII.v.v magma 72 .mumo mnma mosaoca uoc 0o mamuou SOaumossom uuoze . :Oaumosom m o moN mo mommom oumum . . . . . . macaumnacmmuo v o mme v N oN ome 0 mm mma o N no a e mN pamoumIcoz “mono . . . . . . mcoaumnasmmuo o NN aom Na 0 aa eom o Na cm a ev Nmm m am mNa amsoaumosom o.e eoN.N m.aa mv O.vN omv m.m em meummw aoosom m.a ooe e.o ON momoaaou muaSOEEOO .m No .o o. o vN . N. ooa e.mN eme m. mON .osom gunman e o N m N e a mm am aa< "mamuounsm . . . . . . 838:8 m aN moo Na m mm woo a m Na NMN m MN am nonmam oum>aum o \ o o o o COflumogom N No Naa eN e mN ooo N mm ooa v ma emN o mN Naa nonmam oaaosm wooa ooo.omw wooa aoe.Nm wooa mae m wooa vmm.am wooa Nmm "amuoe mamuoa muoouo oomaocmum com uwaaoomxoom ocoao>wau .oooonuoooII.e.e manna 73 organizations with 6.6 percent awarded to non-education agencies or groups. School systems, a traditional sponsor Of adult basic and leisure education, and Community Colleges, a more recent but aggressive competitor for adult clientele, received few, if any, grants from foundations. The excep- tion was Mott which gave 12.5 percent Of its grants to these two recipients and State Boards Of Education. School systems, a major component in the Community Education con— cept, which Mott has pioneered, comprised 9.5 percent of Mott's grants in this study. Educational and non-educational organizations respectively received 19.4 percent and 12 percent of all the grants awarded. This relatively close tally, however, does not carry over into actual appropriations where fund- ing to educational organizations was almost three times greater than that given to non-education groups. A closer examination Of the frequency Of grants made to specific institutions and organizations, moreover, reveals additional information. Except for those institu- tions that receive yearly Mott Foundation support as Regional Community Education Centers, only two universities received more than three grants over the six year period. Cornell University received five grants totaling $475,112 between 1975-77. One $5000 grant was from Ford. The remainder were from the Carnegie Corporation. Most Of 74 these funds, $342,712, were for development Of a compre- hensive education program directed tO union women. The largest institutional recipient Of foundation grants was the University Of Michigan which received seven grants from four foundations amounting to $1,114,778. These included a large grant, $559,209, from Kellogg for a continuing education program in public health, three grants from Mott for community education projects, two grants from Ford for the further education and training of women, and a small grant from Lilly toward the development Of the Open University concept. The Mott and Kellogg foundations are both incorporated in Michigan. The Ford Foundation, now in New York, was established there in 1936. The Lilly Endowment resides in nearby Indiana. Three educational organizations were the only other recipients Of more than two grants over the period covered by the study. The American Association Of Community and Junior Colleges received four grants from three foundations between 1975-77 for a total Of $851,275. All four grants were for different projects although two, from Mott, con- cerned community education. The Ford Foundation was a big supporter of the Mississippi Action for Community Education, making three grants totaling $837,500. The Rockefeller Foundation pro- vided them with two grants and the Clark Foundation gave another, for a grand total Of $1,229,750. All these grants were used for program Operations. 75 Between 1973 and 1978 the Educational Development Center received the support Of three foundations with seven grants for the training and continuing education of school administrators. Carnegie was the primary sponsor giving two grants for a total of $655,000. Ford gave $75,000 and the Sloan Foundation made three small grants that came to $46,000. Purpose of the Grants What kinds Of continuing and nontraditional education activities have received foundation support? Which have received the most support? Is there any relation- ship between the type Of recipient and the type Of activity funded? Have there been specific kinds of programs that have received special attention from individual foundations? Has there been any interest in grants directed at the learning needs of particular groups of adults? An examination Of Table 4.5 shows that among the seven classifications used to divide the activities included in this study, Community Education was the area that received the largest number Of grants. The Mott Founda- tion, which is responsible for the development Of this concept, accounted for 116 of the 135 full purpose grants and 26 Of the 30 partial purpose grants. This is ten of the more than $13 million dollars that has been given for this purpose. Almost all the grants made for Community Education went to educational institutions, universities and school systems. There were twenty-three grants to non- profit organizations, but the descriptor, as used in the 76 «ooa a +«maa N +mao N +oom a amausmm mN N mma a aasm . mcaaomcsou .n +mN a toma a «on~N m «ONa a awavam emm aa woe e mee.a m omm m mNm o aasm scaumosom aoSOauaomuucoz nonuo .o namm a amaunmm moo e mmm.a v mew N aasm mEmHmoum cosmoo amcuwuxm .o +«mNa N +ma a +mao N +00m a amaunmm mmv m oa a amN a aav v aasm mnmucmu mousomom mcacumoa .v +«evm oN amauumm mvN.oa oaa mm N omm m NNm.a v Noe N aasm soaumosom muasseaou .m +eve vN «ONa a amauumm mme v ooa v amm.a aN va.a o ooa.a m aasm mcacamue .N «ooa N «omN N eom.N v amauumm mom.a o moo.m oN mmv m mON.va ee vmo.a m aasm 50aumosom moaSSaucoo .a m .02 m .02 m .02 m .02 m .02 woos maaaq ouch macaaos oaoocnoo .momomusm amauumm osm aasm .Aooov mumaaoo mo mocmmsone ca monsmam .musmuo COaumosom ams0auaomuusoz cam msassaucou mo mmm>9I1.o.v manna .COaumOSSOm Sumo casua3 momomnsm common guaz musmnm mouosoo + .« 77 m +toma N . , . .. . . . I . amaunmm m aasm msaaomssoo .e o amauumm oe NNe e m a 00m a ov a aasm soaumoaom amcoauaomuucoz Hoouo .o a aoauumm ea Om a oaa m aasm msmnmoum omnmoo amsuouxm .m +Ooa a amaunmm ON omv o m a ma N aasm muoucoo mmowsommm msasumoa .e Om «OOa a «mom m amaunmm mma ma a mm m eam e mN a aasm oaaumoaom moanseeoo .m Om «Oma N «mom m amauuom Om eo m mo N Nmo m «N N aasm moasamna .N m aoaunmm mNa mmm.a ea mma mm mm m eoa o aasm soaumosom mcassaucou .a 002 m 002 m 002 W 002 W .02 manpoe mum oomaocmum um m o 00 m o>o amoauossz ouo com aa m x m o: a a0 .oooonuoooIIn .e manna 78 grant listings, seemed to indicate a variety Of social action and community development activities. Activities traditionally defined as continuing education received the most attention from all the founda- tions, with 125 full purpose grants totaling over $22 million dollars. Training, another popular and established form Of continuing education for adults had fifty full and thirty partial purpose grants amounting to over $7 million. While Kellogg and Lilly were the primary providers Of funds for continuing education, the Ford Foundation placed its primary emphasis on the very Obviously job-related training function. Training was the only area that higher education did not dominate as a grant recipient. Non-profit organi- zations received twenty-five full purpose training grants, slightly more than the twenty-two received by higher educa- tion institutions. There were, however, an additional thirty grants classified as having partial training purposes. These grants were from Mott for training administrators and community leaders in community education. Most of these grants went to higher education institutions. Nontraditional education, particularly external degree programs and learning resource centers, received substantial and broadly based support. NO single foundation took the leadership role in funding these more experimental activities. Carnegie, Ford, Mott and Lilly all made moder- ate efforts in this regard. During this period, 79 approximately eighty-six grants were made for nontraditional education purposes with over $10 million dollars in actual appropriations. The learning resources center and educational brokering concepts, which emphasize the utilization of existing educational Opportunities, were fairly popular among almost all the foundations with twenty-seven full or partial purpose grants amounting to over 2.5 million dollars. External degree programs also received over $2.5 million for fourteen grants. Nontraditional education generally was the area that received the most shared purpose grants. Many grants combined these newer, less tested programs with traditional activities or built several nontraditional activities into a single program. Again, higher education was the dominant recipient Of grants in this area with fifty-five out Of eighty-six full purpose grants. Educational organizations received twenty grants and other non-profit organizations gathered eleven grants. Within these general classifications Of grant pur- pose several special purposes emerge as holding the interest Of one or more foundations. Foremost in this regard has been the area Of health care administration. Since 1973, the Kellogg Foundation has made thirty-six grants for these professional continuing education activ- ities. This accounts for 50 percent Of all Kellogg's grants 80 herein, and amounts to over 9.7 million dollars broken down into five project areas as follows: 9 General health care administration $2,445,481 7 Financial Management 2,053,372 8 Nursing and nursing administration 2,786,644 6 Long term health care administration 308,305 _6 Other 2,300,918 36 $9,894,720 The San Francisco Foundation also made three awards in this area with two more from Mott and New York Community Trust making a total of forty-two grants for $10,177,435. In 1974-75 the Ford Foundation sponsored a program that provided professional training for visual artists. Eleven grants were made, generally ranging from $50-70,000. Two grants, however, were to the Visual Arts Center of Alaska for $450,000 of the $950,000 total. Twenty-five percent of The Lilly Endowment's grants were in support Of continuing education activities for the clergy. Between 1974-76, Lilly gave eleven grants for this project at a cost Of $799,833. Another activity that received Lilly support was the area of faculty development with eight grants to various universities and consortiums for a total Of $814,615. The Lilly Endowment, however, was not the only foundation interested in continuing education for faculty and university administrators. Ford, Carnegie, Kellogg, Rockefeller and Mellon all made contributions for this purpose. In total, twenty grants were given equalling 81 $3,306,536 to assist university personnel in improving their performance. The further education Of school administrators and teachers was also a popular area of foundation interest. Twenty-three grants were made for activities in this area from nine foundations. Ford, with eight and Carnegie, with six, were the leaders here. The total was $2,056,963. The major project was the previously mentioned program of 4‘ ”Tim I.” the Educational Development Corporation. The Ford Foundation was the largest single con- tributor to nontraditional education, giving sixteen grants, 34.8 percent, totaling $2,329,131, or 43.1 percent over the six years. Of major interest to Ford has been the development Of the British Open University concept and the use Of communications technology. Ford made five grants for this purpose over the six years coming to $1,184,445. Evaluation research for nontraditional education has also been Of concern to Ford. Five of their sixteen grants were for various kinds Of evaluation for nontraditional educa- tion generally and specifically for external degree pro- grams. Ford's research commitment in this area was $116,176. New York State was the leader in Obtaining founda- tion support for nontraditional education programs. The New York Regents, credit-by-examination program, and Empire State College, which primarily takes a contract- 1earning approach, received $997,276 and $222,050 82 respectively, from Carnegie and Kellogg in the first case and from Carnegie and Ford in the second. The Regional Learning Service Of Central New York, a pioneer in the resource center and brokering concepts garnered $486,927 from Carnegie, Ford, and Kellogg. Basically, grants awarded to higher education insti- tutions were degree-related and developmental, especially in nontraditional activities. The focus Of higher educa- tion grants for continuing education and training centered on either research or professional development. Non-profit organizations received grants for training purposes or for the development of education and career resource centers. The few guidance and counseling grants also went to these groups. Those non-profit agencies classed as educational also received grants for continuing education. Many Of these were professional organizations Offering development Opportunities for their associates. Most of the school systems received funds for community education. A few, however, received grants in support Of adult basic educa- tion, G.E.D.'s, or further training for administrative personnel. Slightly under 20 percent Of all grants in this study were geared to the educational needs Of particular groups of adults. Eighty-six out Of 434 grants went to projects for minority groups members, women, elders, or other specific client populations. Eleven Of Rockefeller's fourteen grants, $1,808,625, went to programs for minorities. It'mmfi .. II 83 Two Of these were for Native Americans and one was for Hispanics. Seven of the grants were for leadership devel- Opment or community education. Just under half of the number of grants Carnegie gave out went to programs serving the needs Of women, totaling $1,680,847. Three of these grants were for the Cornell University Labor School project for union women. Seven other programs for women also focused on training and career development. The San Francisco Foundation awarded nine out of its thirteen grants to a diverse array of special client groups. The elderly, women, the handicapped, prisoners, and homosexuals all received portions of the $71,583 total that went to special groups. Foundations with Special Interest in Adult Education How do those foundations that have specified an inter- est in adult education compare in their funding pat- terns tO other foundations in the study? The Mott and Kellogg foundations, two of the three foundations that the Foundation Center's Directory specif- ically listed as interested in the field of Adult Education, were clearly leaders in supporting continuing and nontra- ditional education activities. Fifty-five percent Of all the grants and 64.7 percent of all the appropriations in this study were from these two foundations. Their commitment to developing Opportunities in continuing education is further illustrated by looking at 84 the proportion of their annual contributions that go to this area. While the average for all Directory foundations is only 2 percent of annual contributions, Kellogg and Mott respectively gave 15.5 percent and 14.5 percent Of their yearly grant appropriations to activities included in this study. A reexamination of Table 4.2 shows that all the other foundations in the study were appropriating amounts much closer to the Foundation Directory norm. I _-1..|.. C Mott's commitment, however, is very narrowly focused on developing programs in Community Education with only a token effort in other continuing and nontraditional educa- tion categories considered herein. More than ten of the $13.3 million Mott appropriated for these purposes went to community education, $1.3 million went to continuing educa- tion and less than $400,000 was given for nontraditional education. Similarly, the Kellogg Foundation has concentrated two-thirds of its contributions to more traditionally defined programs of continuing education. Although Kellogg has funded substantial projects in newer, more experimental areas Of adult education, the other foundations seem more willing to fund nontraditional approaches. The Lilly Endowment, the third foundation to specify adult education as a field of interest, did not have an Obvious leadership position among the selected foundations. Ranking fourth, behind Ford, in grants and appropriations, Lilly committed only 1.9 percent of its 85 grants to continuing and nontraditional education over the period Of this study. This is only partially explained by a large drop in assets and expenditures that began in 1977. Twenty-five percent Of Lilly's grants, however, have been in support of nontraditional education activities, partic- ularly learning resource centers. Adequacy Of Information Sources How adequate are the publicly available sources of foundation grants information for research into their grant-making activities. The Foundation Grants Index The FGI, developed by the Foundation Center in 1972 to facilitate research into foundation grant-making activities was chosen as the data source for this study because most Of the major foundations provided grant infor- mation to it. Furthermore, the grants were presented in a uniform fashion and provided additional information and description not included in the IRS 990-A's or in most foundation annual reports. The generation, by computer search, of grants inappropriate to this topic had, to some extent, been anticipated. Analysis of the remaining 434 grants, however, produced information that was not consistent with the researcher's knowledge Of these foundations based upon secondary analysis of annual reports. Examples of these inconsistencies include: 86 1. The data showed the Carnegie Corporation as making thirty grants totaling $4,509,501 over the six year period. However, a detailed case study Of Carnegie that was developed as part of this investigation revealed five grants for that period totaling $7,961,706 (see Chapter V). 2. The Lilly Endowment, according to this data, made three awards in 1977 and two in 1978 compared to the ten to twelve in previous years. Lilly has been a major advocate of continuing education. Their 1977 Annual Report was found to have seventeen grants that met the criteria established for this study, totaling over $1.2 million (see Chapter V). This figure alone calls into doubt all the figures given for Lilly and casts suspicion on the com- pleteness of all the grant data especially given the low numerical and dollar totals of some Of these very large foundations. 3. The Cleveland Foundation, according to the data, made six grants for nontraditional education pur- poses. Yet, correspondence with this foundation indicated they had made a major commitment to this area between 1974-78 totaling $784,840 (see Chapter V). 4. The Ford Foundation Often tends to distort the overall picture of foundation activity because of their huge assets and yearly grants. In this study, however, they are shown as giving less than six million dollars to these purposes over six years. This is less than 20 percent of T>T~“‘ :— 87 their educational research budget in any one year of the six years studied except 1978. The construction Of the original FGI search was reviewed by Ms. Martha Keenes Of the Foundation Center. She expressed the Opinion that the search was well designed, and that it contained a larger number of descriptors than usually used by others doing grants research, which likely would result in selection of some inappropriate grants. This had already been taken into account. The culprit, it seems, is at the source. The foundations supply grant descriptions to the FGI voluntarily. The detail in these descriptions and the terminology used can vary greatly from foundation to foundation and from year to year. Although the Foundation Center provides a special form for this information, less than one-third Of the participating foundations use it, preferring to simply send in Annual or Quarterly Reports or the IRS 990-A's.3 Each grant's classification and key words are sup- plied either by the foundation Or the Foundation Center staff. Different individuals will be responsible for this task as grants are submitted throughout each year. Without a knowledge of the terminology even grants with detailed description can be misclassified. This, in part, explains why some faculty development grants were included in the search while others were not. Two descriptors, continuing education and career development, were used as key words 88 in classifying some of the grant listings but not in all Of them. These deficiencies in the FGI were not public knowledge until March 1, 1980, with the publication Of the 1979 Foundation Grants Index when, "in an effort to develop a more consistent base Of grant information the Center expanded the Index to include all grant information of the ninety-eight largest grant-making foundations meeting the criteria for inclusion."4 The grants made by those founda- tions will be carefully checked for completeness of informa- tion by Foundation Center Staff. The problems in classification and lack Of standard terminology however, continue to exist, making any substan- tive analysis based on the FGI difficult. -This is especi- ally true for the field of continuing education where con- flicts and controversy over terminology abound and efforts to resolve them through standardization have not been successful.5 Alternative Information Sources Concurrent with the discovery of the inadequacies Of the FGI, additional difficulty was also encountered in trying to obtain other information directly from the founda- tions. In trying to find out the extent of funding con- tinuing education activities received as a proportion of foundation grants to education or higher education, the researcher discovered that this type Of categorical 89 breakdown was generally not made by most Of the foundations in their Annual Reports. The Education Program Officer of each foundation was contacted under the assumption that this type of information would be kept for internal analy- sis. Correspondence produced three kinds Of response: a reply stating that the information was not kept, a referral to the Annual Report, or no reply. The Cleveland Foundation was the only foundation that made available this information to the researcher. Similarly, attempts to contact some Of these adminis- trators by telephone produced referrals to the Foundation Center or unreturned messages.6 Realizing that the number of people seeking grants and grant information is large, this response is understandable. Nonetheless, it compli- cated the research process. Annual Reports, as a source for comparative data also proved to be generally unsuitable. First, some foun- dations provided detailed descriptions of each grant in their reports while others list only the recipient, the amount, and a short phrase for a description. Second, foundations list grants that were authorized during their fiscal year which varied with each foundation. A third problem was that a change in accounting, organizational restructuring, or fiscal year, resulted in footnoted admust- ments to financial data which also complicated comparisons. Additionally, there was little consistency between foundations in their approaches to report format. iii. ." Inn-w 4‘ I t. _' 90 Categories of grants awarded were different for each foun- dation and sometimes changed from year to year as the foundation changed program priorities or reorganized internally. All these difficulties compound the human error that is likely in drawing out the appropriate infor- mation from an annual report. It is Obvious that trying to determine how great a problem exists within the FGI when there is no more reliable alternative for comparison is a very difficult undertaking. Some perspective, however, can be Obtained by examining in detail the grant-making activities of three foundations in this study, Carnegie, Cleveland, and Lilly. Drawing on all available data sources, in this way the three foundations illustrate not only the magnitude of the research problem but also provide a more detailed perspec- tive regarding patterns Of grant-making activities for con- tinuing and traditional education. Summary Data for this study was analyzed from the per- spectives of the donor foundations, recipients, and grant purposes. Overall, 434 grants were made in 1973-78 period by the fifteen selected foundations. The total appropri- ation was $56.8 million. Five foundations, Mott, Kellogg, Ford, Carnegie and Lilly, accounted for 82.5 percent of all contributions. Mott and Kellogg, two of the three foundations on record 91 as interested in this field contributed 14.5 percent and 15.5 percent Of their respective budgets over the six years, to continuing and nontraditional education activities. Higher education was the favored recipient of foun- dation grants, gathering 60.7 percent of all grants and 63.7 percent of all appropriations. Some foundations pre- ferred giving to private higher education institutions but public colleges and universities were favored two to one, receiving $24.1 million to the $12.1 given to private insti- tutions received multiple grants, generally from two to four foundations. The continuing education of faculty and Of health care administrators were two special projects that caught the interest of several foundations. Among nontraditional education programs, learning resource centers received widespread support. External Degree programs were also popular. Comparisons between FGI data and foundation annual reports revealed numerous examples Of underreporting by the FGI Of grants relevant to this research. Lack of con- sistent terminology and definitions and the voluntary nature of the reporting system were traced as some Of the reasons. Foundation annual reports were found to have less information concerning individual grants than the FGI. They were, therefore, used as a supplementary source instead Of an alternative to FGI information. CHAPTER V THREE CASE STUDIES Introduction Additional insight into foundation interest in con- tinuing and nontraditional education was gained by exam- ining the Annual Reports and other publications of The Carnegie Corporation, Lilly Endowment and Cleveland Founda- tion. In assets and grant payments these three foundations respectively represented the top, middle and bottom ranks of the foundations studied. Their publications varied in style and comprehensiveness and their priorities were dif- ferent. This diversity added depth to the study of founda- tion grant-making patterns. It also illustrated the wide- spread nature of the data base deficiencies. Each case study begins with highlights Of the foun- dation's history followed by analysis of their publications, particularly Annual Reports. Finally, the grant analysis compares listings in the reports with those provided by the FGI using the decision rules and criteria outlined in Chapter III. Adjustments to the FGI data are shown in accompanying tables. 92 93 The Carnegie Corporation of New York Background The Carnegie Corporation Of New York was set up as a philanthropic foundation in 1911 by steel magnate, Andrew Carnegie. It was one of seven philanthropic and educational organizations established by Carnegie in the U.S. Its capital fund, originally donated at a value of about $135 million, now has a market worth of over $272 million, placing it among the fifteen largest foundations in the nation. As a foundation, its purpose is "the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding among peoples of the United States and certain parts of the British Commonwealth. In the U.S. grants are madeprimarily to academic institutions and national or regional organiza- tions to improve education at all levels from preschool through higher education and for research or monitoring projects designed to advance the cause of social justice and equal opportunity in education. Within these broad parameters, the Corporation concentrates on a limited number of problems at any one time."1 The Carnegie Corporation's record in the field of national and international education is well known. In the past, Carnegie has been involved in such areas as: adult education in the 19205 and 19305, arts education in the 19505, public television in the 19605 and education 94 Of blacks in the 19705.2 Among its many activities are such major reports as Gunnar Mydral's pioneering commentary on American race relations, An American Dilemma, James Conant's work on the American High School, and Clark Kerr's Commission on Higher Education. Foundation Publications Public accountability was a theme introduced in 1924 by Carnegie's first major professional president, Fredrick P. Keppel. Keppel felt that foundations, although privately endowed, were public enterprises and that grants made by them should be a matter of public concern.3 It is a philosophy that the foundation continues to hold and reflect in its publications. Carnegie published quarterly and annual reports, a "general information" leaflet, and special reports on major projects. Their Annual Reports have developed a consistent reporting format that has been kept for over a decade. The Reports began with the "Report from the President" which set the tone by discussing the major thrust of the past year's activities. The "Report on the Program" pro- vided a summary Of grant actions and detailed descriptions Of all grants funded. Also reported were summaries of internal projects and publications resulting from past grants. The "Report of the Secretary" gave a short summary of personnel changes, and the "Report of the Treasurer" 95 provided all the financial information required by law for public disclosure. The Program Report was the most detailed account of grants among all the foundations studied. It began its list Of grants by providing a summary Of the numbers, amounts, and recipients of grants awarded and stated the basic criteria used by the foundation for making grant decisions. The grants were divided into six program areas: higher education, early childhood develOpment, elementary and secondary education, public affairs, other grants and grants tO the Commonwealth program. The report from each program area highlighted the major priorities and projects and provided elaborate descriptions of all new grants awarded within its jurisdiction. Not provided in these reports were the subtotals for grant appropriations for each area or the duration Of each grant. Additionally, the descriptions provided for each grant sometimes supplied the background of the recipient organization to the exclu- sion Of the purpose for the grant. The "Report Of the Treasurer" provided an alpha- betical listing Of all payments made on grants during the fiscal year, ending each September 30th. A brief one sen- tence description was provided along with the year the grant was made or its location within the current report. From this list one could approximate the duration of grants made in previous fiscal years. 96 Grant Analysis 1973-78 According to their 1973 Annual Report, Carnegie appropriated $16,594,797 for 121 grants. This included $1,764,000 for the Commonwealth program. Fifty-four of these grants went to colleges, universities or schools. The stated program priorities for higher education included the development Of more flexible program Options, nontra- ditional study, liberal education and exploration Of the relationship between education and work. Forty-two percent of all new grants, $6,785,015, went to programs in the higher education division. Five of those fifty-one grants met the criteria developed for this study. Three Of those, however, were not included in the grants provided by the FGI to this study. Geor etown University _ $164,000 for conferences and workshops to train faculty in the use of individualized instruction. Syracuse University, Regional Learning Service $58,000 to provide counselors, study materials, and information for external degree students. The Manpower Institute, Education-Manpower Council $140,000 for a comprehensive study of the impli- cations Of lifelong learning for education and business. Furthermore, there were five other grants provided by the FGI, but not listed in the higher education section of the Annual Report. Four of these were found among the thir- teen grants that Carnegie made through its elementary and secondary education unit, although the Foundation Center had categorized them as Personnel Development or Educational ‘1‘ f. -.L‘ l I 97 Research. One grant, made in December, to support a study of continuing education programs for women, was not found in either the 1973 or 1974 Annual Reports. It was, how- ever, in the first quarterly report for the 1974 fiscal year. All seven of the grants that the FGI provided to this study contained less description of grant purposes than provided by the Annual Reports. In two cases the report's descriptions were so different that they did not fit this study's established criteria. When these two inappropriate grants were eliminated from Carnegie's 1973 figures cited earlier and the three omitted grants were added, the total number Of 1973 grants for continuing and nontraditional education rose to eight and the total appropriation increased to $1,582,000 which was 10.7 per- cent Of all Carnegie's grants for the year instead Of the previous 8.4 percent. The "hit or miss" nature Of the FGI and Annual Reports for this and other years is shown in Table 5.1. In 1974, the Corporation made 106 grants for $15,799,988. Fifty-one of these went to educational institutions. The Higher Education Program priorities remained the same with $5,698,475 for forty-four grants. Seven Of those grants, equaling $1,509,700, fit into this study; only two, how- ever, at $302,000 were selected by the computer search. Two major grants overlooked by the search went to: 98 SOaDmosom Nom.N aNo eno.a New eom.a Nma.a Nmn.a n aocoauaonnunoz am o o o ea Na o a com moassausou How musmuo amuoe eoN I I No I «ooa aN n m cos man n I I +a I I +N e u u .o« ooa.m aNo eno.a nNe eom.a NmN.N noo.a n muoy en n o e ea Na oa e a non ono.n NeN eeo enn non moN.a Non n uncoom Henson eN N e e n n n e scum macauaooo oan.e men nae mma eoN.a emo.a neN.a n mooum was» on n N n m e e e on mucosa Hon Houoe mema eema oema nema eema nema How» o Ioooo mnoaaoo no mononoore on .memaInema .muoono coauoooom amsoauaomuusoz ocm mcassausou mo mumeesm "xuow 3oz mo OOaumuomnoo mamosumo osaII.a.m oaome 99 iL- .Emnmoum spammBSOEEOU may on moms musmum macaE omnauonusm mucmum amuou oouuomomtt .huucm Housoaoo ca “Chum; .coaumauomoo uuomom amscsa mo 3ma> ca oumaumoummmsa common magnum Hom+ mucosa Han N.oa m.m m.m m.m o.oa o.va 5.0a w MO usmoumm mm In. anooe ooumoeoa . . . . . . . musmno aad m0 m n e n n n o a n m N e e m m ocoonoo no Hon 4 e e e e e e *thCMHU awn on com aa amm aa mob aa mmm Na MNO ma amm va m Daummfioa aafl ampOB ohm hbma ohma moma oema mom new» o a a Aooov mHMaaOQ m0 mUGMmSOSB CH .oooonuooOII.a.n manna 100 The Educational Testing Service $821,000 for the CAEL project on nontraditional experiential learning The American Council on Education and the New York State Regents Program to examine the use of credit-for-prior-learning acquired through noneducational institutions. The five grants were probably listed in the FGI, however, since the FGI has shortened the grant descriptions, there was no way to determine what categories and descriptors were used. Five other grants not found listed in the section on higher education, were provided by the FGI for 1974. Three of these were listed within Carnegie's section for elementary and secondary education grants. One of these, to Experiential Systems, Inc. was listed in the Annual Report as $81,485 but the FGI printout had it itemized as $181,485. The two remaining grants were made late in 1974 which placed them in Carnegie's 1975 Annual Report. When adjustments were made for omitted grants or errors in information, Carnegie's commitment to continuing education went up to $2,191,859 for twelve grants which was 14.6 percent of their grants for the year. The central themes for Higher Education in Carnegie's 1975 report were to (l) widen Options for all individuals of all ages who seek a college education and (2) the further development Of programs that integrate work and education patterns of lifelong learning. Overall, higher education accounted for thirty-nine out of the 125 101 grants Carnegie made that year, $4,309,061 out of $13,938,035 in grant appropriations. Seven Of those thirty-nine grants fit into this research. Only one, to the Syracuse University Regional Learning Service, was selected by the FGI search. Inter- estingly this program was one that the FGI had failed to identify in 1973. Obviously the descriptions and/or cate- gories were quite different in each year. The other six grants represented $663,450 in grant money not reflected earlier in this report. There were seven other FGI grants that were not contained in the higher education section of the Carnegie report. Two were found described under public affairs. Two others were made late in the calendar year and were reported in 1976. Two grants were found listed in the treasurer's financial report but not described elsewhere. One grant, to Cornell University initiating an extensive education resource network for working women was described so vaguely in the Annual Report that it was initially over- looked, yet descriptions in subsequent years clearly indi- cate its suitability for inclusion. Only three grants were reported by the FGI as meeting the study criteria for 1976. One, for the Cornell University program was listed under higher education in the 1977 report. Another had been classified in the elementary and secondary division. The third, to Wellesley College for a program for mature women, was described in the report 102 as having a research emphasis in career counseling which did not fit into this study. Additionally, there were four other higher education grants drawn from the report but not in the FGI accounting for another $536,000. Deleting the Wellesley program and adding the other four grants, placed the total commitment at $642,000. This was still a substantial drop from previous years. It should be noted, however, that the 1976 priorities for higher edu- cation shifted somewhat toward finding solutions for "steady state" fiscal concerns and increased educational Opportuni- ties for minorities and women. One of the two 1977 FGI grants, to continue the Cornell University project, appeared in the 1978 Annual Report. The other, to the National Center for Educational Brokering, was found where it was expected to be, listed under higher education grants. A $28.000 grant, however, to Syracuse's Regional Learning Service, the foremost educa- tional brokerage in the country, did not appear in the com- puter search along with three others totaling $644,000. Although nontraditional education was still a major concern in 1977, there had been a definite shift in emphasis toward improving undergraduate eduCation through more effective use of resources, and to collective bargaining issues. By 1978, the higher education program priorities had completed the changeover to a focus on financial prob- lems and coping with a "steady state" environment. Only four grants in that section Of the report fit into this 103 study. Two of these had been listed by the FGI. The differ- ence being only $242,350. There was one grant made in December, provided by FGI, that appeared in their 1979 Annual Report. As Table 5.1 illustrates, Carnegie's commitment to nontraditional and continuing education was considerably underestimated in the FGI search. Given the enormous uni- verse Of possible projects to fund, an average commitment of 10.2 percent over six years was substantial. The underreporting of Carnegie grants by the FGI appears to be the result of the loss of descriptive infor- mation when the grants were entered for machine storage and retrieval, combined with some inappropriate selection Of categories and key words by Foundation Centers staff. It should be noted, however, that the FGI search did uncover many grants that were administered under other Carnegie program areas. These grants can easily be overlooked when manually reviewing the one-hundred-plus grants described in each report. The Lilly Endowment Background In 1937, when the Lilly Endowment was established, there was only $15,570 available as endowment income. That year only one grant was made for $10,500 to the Indianapolis Community Chest.4 Forty-one years later, in 104 1978, their assets amounted to $653,367,581 and they made 326 grants paying out over $21 million dollars in appropri- ations. Initially, grants from the endowment fund reflected the favorite charities Of the Lilly family. This included substantial general support grants to private colleges in Indiana. In 1956, Lilly adopted a policy defining three major areas of interest: education, community services and religion. At that time over half of their grants were going to education and another sixth into the field of religion.5 In the area of community services the Endowment placed its emphasis on "the preservation Of human liberty in the United States," and in 1962 grants were made which "contributed to a better understanding of the anti-communist, free-enterprise, limited government concept."6 The focus on religion and on moral aspects of eco- nomic education gave Lilly a reputation for conservatism, and indeed small grants were made to fundamentalist colleges and to nonpolitical, anti-communist activities. The largest and most numerous grants, however, went tO liberal religious organizations and schools. The United Negro College Fund, for example, received annual grants almost from the beginning, as did Earlham College, a liberal Quaker insti- tution.7 Lilly continues to place its emphasis on moral values in its grants for religion, education and community service, but few people now attach a conservative label. 105 The Endowment has been interested in "innovative programs that seek to produce positive changes in human society, promote human development, strengthen independent institutions, encourage responsive government at local, state and national levels, and improve the quality Of life in Indianapolis and Indiana.8 Foundation Publications During the early years, little was known about Lilly's activities beyond its own community and its immedi- ate beneficiaries. In 1950, however, the board decided to publish its first annual report because increases in assets had made it one of the major foundations in the country. Reports have been issued ever since because: we [Lilly] recognize our responsibility not only to place our money intelligently, but algo to make a public accounting Of our stewardship. The Endowment also has a small pamphlet, "Guidelines," describing procedures for grant applicants. Lilly's Annual Report, while adequate in present- ing an overview of the foundation's activities, lacked the descriptive quality to really enlighten someone interested in the nature of their grants. The report format that Lilly used was developed in 1974-75. It began with a general statement that set the theme and summarized the program priorities for the year. Usually the theme picked up on internal operations or elaborated a part of the grants process. Sometimes, however, an external event set 106 the tone of the report. In 1973, the report also included program reports that summarized activities in the areas Of education, religion and community development. These were dropped the following year. Brief capsulizations of the narrative for each year's report have been presented below. 1213: Characterized as a year of expanding activity and staff. An announcement was made regarding the Endow- ment's intention to eliminate, by 1976, the general support grants to independent undergraduate colleges, to be replaced by challenge grants. This shift occurred at the same time that the Endowment re-emphasized its interest in program- matic grants over grants for buildings or endowment. Priorities for the area of Education included: improved governance of higher education institutions; improved utili- zation of faculty and administrative resources; and encour- agement Of professional development and continuing education of teachers. A new direction into early childhood education was also indicated. In the area of Religion the emphasis was on continuing education of the clergy, particularly those whose ministry was in Black churches, and in leader- ship training and development. In 1973, the area of Com- munity Development was undergoing a process of redefining its Options and policies. Education and training Of com- munity leaders was stressed. 1214: The importance Of philanthropy and the pri- vate non-profit sector was the theme for this report, 107 probably influenced by the publication that year Of the Report of the Committee on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs (The Filer Commission). This was the first year Of a new format which eliminated virtually all verbal descrip- tion of activities, priorities and Objectives. The report basically reiterated the Filer Commission's statements on the importance of foundations in sustaining a decentral- ized, pluralistic system in America. 1975: In this year there was a return to a longer narrative although without separate reports on programs areas. The emphasis was on "self-help development" reflect- ing the intent Of Lilly to give grants to help people carry on, on their own. Program priorities included: Family Development early childhood development, pre-school education and training for parenthood Career Development "not all colleges and uni- versities . . . have been able tO keep pace with the requirements Of a society in ferment or with the demands of the new breed of stu- dent." Professional Development to explore the frontiers of new and effective training and retraining programs, particularly for the clergy, for community leaders and for college faculty. 1976: On 24 January 1977, Eli Lilly, one Of the principle founders, died. This report, therefore, included an eulogy, paying tribute to the man and his interest in religious values, education and social welfare. The keynote 108 Of the report was Lilly's "investment in people," that faith in the individuals and their organizations was implicit in every grant decision. Stressing the importance of the partner relationship, the foundation outlined its expectations Of grant recipients and concluded with pro- files Of fifteen individuals who had received past grants. _ig11: The theme Of this year was to "Open a vista," to keep a clear view. It began with an apocryphal story about J. K. Lilly, Sr. and led into a statement about that being a year to examine and evaluate Objectives and strate- gies. 1977 was a year Of financial troubles for Lilly which necessitated a reduction in new grants and in Operat- ing expenses. The president affirmed the intention to fully meet current grant Obligations and characterized this period as a time Of challenge to the staff to sharpen their philan- thropic skills. 1218: The narrative for this report focused on the decision systems in the Endowment's grant-making process. It reiterated its program areas and mentioned its avoidance of health care projects. It presented an excellent outline of the procedures and evaluation criteria for Lilly's grant decisions but which were general enough to serve as a valu- able guide for those seeking grants almost anywhere. Grant Analysis Following the narrative of each report was the "List Of Grants," an alphabetical list of recipients with 109 a short phrase or sentence to describe the grant. Also provided are the dollar amounts appropriated or paid out to each organization that year and amounts paid previously and those still outstanding. The major problem with this section was that grant descriptions were too brief, often insufficient for determining the grant's purpose. Overall, it appeared that the Lilly Endowment has stayed well within the original intentions Of its founders throughout its forty-three year history. Moral values and , education continued to be stressed although the emphasis changed as society's values changed. Education at all levels and particularly theological education has been the primary focus from the beginning. The idea Of social wel- fare, defined in 1937 basically as charitable contributions, has shifted toward community development, again with an emphasis on leadership education. None of the yearly reports offered any details of grant purposes or recipients. The columns were totaled at the end of the list and it is left to the reader to count or otherwise analyze the 200-300 grants listed each year. For Lilly, the descriptions provided in the reports were generally less than that supplied to the FGI. The lack of description made it difficult to select grants that fell within the framework of this study, although some of the descriptions contained appropriate descriptors. 110 Because Lilly's fiscal year coincided with the calendar year, all FGI grants were located in each year's report. There were many grants in each Annual Report appropriate to this study but not selected by the computer. Many of these grants contained descriptors used in the search. Other grants however, had terms, such as "faculty development," that were not included as descriptors, but should have been. Table 5.2 presents the combined Annual Report and FGI grants for Lilly. Of the eleven additional grants taken from Lilly's 1973 Annual Report, three were for faculty development or faculty improvement. Two grants used the term "noncampus education" instead Of the descriptor "off- campus education" selected for this search. Five other grants clearly should have been selected by the computer because they contained appropriate descriptors. Two Of these were: Indiana Newman Foundation $120,000 Continuing education for campus ministers DePaul University $ 20,000 Planning funds for a nontraditional school The three other grants were for training programs for teachers, clergy and laity. The eleven grants for 1.6 million indicated a much greater commitment by Lilly to continuing education, on the order of 4.9 percent instead Of the 1.8 percent indicated solely by the FGI search. Llll%,+ . «.0 o.ma m.m a.m m.m m.a m.a m magnum aa< mo ucmoamm mm Hmuoa omumonpd m.a o.a a.a m.a a.a m.m m.a m manage aaa ao unmonmm mm Hum Noo.mv~ Nam.ma mam.aa mmo.~a amm.mm mmm.mm mmm.am m magmaw oaummeoa aa< n mma.ma oma.~ ao~.a amm.~ mmm.~ mom.¢ mom.m m 1 ava ma aa am am mm ma a aaaoa mam.oa ~mm.a moo.a maa.a mma.a aaq.a mmo.a m manommm amscaa mm ma «a am ma aa aa a scam mcoauacca mam.v mma «om «mm mam amo.~ aam m mosum maau ma m m oa ma ma a a ca magnum aom amaoa mama aama mama mama mama mama How» w Loco. mamaaoo ao mwammsose ca .mamaumama .coaamoswm HMGOwqumapcoz cam mcwscaucoo How mucmuo mo wamfifism "quE3oocm kHHHA mnall.m.m mqmda 112 This same pattern was repeated throughout the other five years of the study. There were fourteen to twenty-one additional grants found in each Annual Report, adding one to two million dollars to the Endowments total commitment. Faculty Development was the term most frequently used for these "found" grants, accounting for sixty-eight of the ninety-eight additional grants identified. There were, moreover, eight grants for "continuing education of faculty" which had been identified by the FGI search. This combined commitment to faculty improvement is shown in Table 5.3. Table 5.3.--The Lilly Endowment: Faculty Development Grants 1973-78. Year Number Amount 1973 4 $ 850,000 1974 10 1,439,953 1975 17 1,594,560 1976 21 1,849,576 1977 13 1,084,517 1978 11 1,413,702 Totals 76 $8,232,308 Most of the other grants found in the reports were for programs involving various types of training. There were also some grants that contained descriptors that had 113 been used in this study and should, therefore, have been identified by the FGI. Examples of these include: St. Mary's-in-the-Woods College $300,000 to expand women's external degree program St. Patrick's Church $ 20,000 adult education program Educational Testing Service $200,000 training for faculty in credit evaluation of life/work experience Columbia College $ 50,000 continuing education for faculty Phi Delta Kappa, Inc. $ 12,180 alternative education program How these grants were entered into the FGI can only be determined by running a search again for all Lilly grants. Given the brevity of the grant descriptions used in the reports, the six year total of 141 grants could be either an overstatement or understatement of Lilly's com- mitment to this area. This total, however, while vastly larger than previously indicated by the FGI search, reflected only 6.2 percent of the Endowment's total con- tributions over six years. The fourteen to thirty-one grants made each year for continuing and nontraditional education purposes were not many in View of the 150-200 grants Lilly awarded each year. The Cleveland Foundation Background The Cleveland Foundation was established in 1914 largely through the efforts of Frederick H. Golf, president 114 of the Cleveland Trust Company. The Foundation was the first community foundation in the country and served as a model for all community foundations that followed in suc- ceeding years. The foundation had 241 separate trust funds and a combined fund for smaller gifts. Five trustee banks safe- guard and invest the funds which were allocated several times each year by an eleven member distribution committee representing a cross-section of community leadership and local philanthropy. With assets over $150 million, the Cleveland Foundation was the second largest community foun- dation in the nation. In 1914, before the foundation had earned any income, its then sole trustee, the Cleveland Trust Company, donated $10,000 for a series of comprehensive community-wide public surveys to identify and publicize the major problem 11 Within three years the foundation had four of the area. times its 1914 budget and by 1918 was making its first con- tributions. That year the foundation was instrumental in establishing Cleveland's Community Chest, the predecessor of the United Fund, the first combined contributions plan in the country. The Foundation's stated purposes were "to assist public charitable or educational institutions in Ohio; promote education and scientific research; care for the sick, aged and helpless; improve living and working 115 conditions; provide facilities for public recreation; pro— mote social and domestic hygiene, sanitation and the pre- vention of disease; and research into the causes of ignor- 12 In short, everything ance, poverty, crime and vice." except religion. Grants were made for special projects with emphasis on higher education, hospitals, health and medical research, social services, the aged, child welfare, com- munity and economic development and criminal justice. Foundation Publications Annual Reports and a quarterly newsletter were the official publications of the Cleveland Foundation. Their Annual Report, the primary vehicle of public information for all foundations, was somewhat of a cross between those of the Carnegie Corporation and The Lilly Endowment. The format has been the same since 1974 when it eliminated some information about individual grants but provided more detailed program reports. Each Report began with a letter from the Chairman and a Director's Report. The first of these adopted a very general theme and the letter provided an overview of foundation activities within a community or national context. A graphic summary of grant appropriations in the six areas of foundation interest was presented followed by reports from each program area: education, health, cultural affairs, civic affairs, social services and special philan- thropic services. Each program area presented a verbal 116 summary of its priorities and highlighted several illustra- tive grants. An alphabetical listing followed, listing all grant recipients in that program area with very brief, one sentence, descriptions of purpose. Each program area had separate lists and subtotals for designated and undesig- nated grants. The financial section was very lengthy, due to the large number of trusts that must be accounted for. There was also a section explaining how an individual can make a bequest to the foundation. Grant Analysis 1973-78 1973 was characterized as a year of transition for the Cleveland Foundation. Its Director had left in mid- year and selecting the replacement had consumed most of the staff's attention and energy. The report that year was the most comprehensive of any year in the study period, although the FGI descriptions were a bit more detailed. Separate reports and grant listings for Higher and Elementary and Secondary Education were provided. The higher education report noted the completion of a three year study of public school personnel with strong recommendations for additional teacher training and continuing education. Mention was also made in the report of a program to train professionals to work with the visually handicapped. None of the sixteen grants listed in this section, however, contained descriptors developed for this study. The two grants that had been 117 identified in the FGI search were found under Elementary and Secondary education. These were for further teacher training. There was also another grant in the elementary and secondary education section, to Case-Western Reserve, for $34,300, to train school principals in new adminis- trative techniques. The following year, 1974, was called the "year of reassessment and self-renewal" by the Chairman. Grants were larger and fewer. The new Director outlined a five- year plan calling for less grants to programs that receive government support, more joint government-citizen projects, providing more direction in originating grant projects, and evaluating all grants on a quarterly basis. Grant descriptions were brief and all education grants were combined into one section, which stressed the need for planning and fiscal responsibility, especially in community colleges. Only one additional grant was found in the report that fit this study. It was a $30,000 award to the Cleve- land Commission on Higher Education, for the Greater Cleve- land External Degree Consortium. "A quickening pace" was the term used in the 1975 Report to describe the Cleveland Foundation, which saw new peaks in the amount of grants and in the addition of new staff. The report for education programs focused on the problems of racial isolation in the school system. For higher education institutions, consultants had been hired to chart their future direction and needs for funding. 118 The FGI search showed six grants that year for $170,859. Four of these were found within the Education Program Report. The other two grants were not located. These included a $30,675 grant to the Cleveland Commission on Higher Education for a mid-career study group and gradu- ate program through the library system and a $40,162 grant to Cleveland State University for the development of tele- vised learning programs. There was also a $5,000 evaluation of Dyke's College's External Degree Program. However, because this was an internal, administrative expense, it was not considered in the total. According to their Chairman, the Cleveland Founda- tion tion had come into its full flower just as the city needed such an institution as never before. By 1976, Court ordered desegregation had firmly divided the city and the foundation was concentrating a large part of its activities in efforts to keep the populace calm. Both the Director's report and that of the education program focused on this topic. The major projects funded included a study group composed of community leaders on racial isolation in the public schools and funding of the Greater Cleveland Project, a consortium of sixty organizations all seeking ways to create and keep a peaceful climate in the volatile city. The two grants found in the Annual Report that were appropriate to this study had also been identified in the FGI search. There was, however, a $99 difference in the FGI and Annual Report listings for one grant appropriation. 119 External events in Cleveland were again reflected in the theme of the foundation's 1977 report. The long term economic problems of the region, the immediate fiscal and political woes of the city and the continued battle over desegregation were some of the events that prompted the foundation to assume the role of "facilitator of dia- logue and communication." This was also the beginning of a shift in funding policy. The Foundation felt that it was time to research, develop and test new directions in com- munity problem-solving. The foundation had begun in 1914 by initiating research into community problems and now they would again mount "significant experimental efforts based on research information and subject to suitable controls."13 The report on education programs again stressed its concern with peaceful desegregation. For higher education the report summarized its priorities over the past few years listing three areas of grant activity. --community service projects --interinstitutional cooperation --expanded access for nontraditional students This was the first time mention was made of founda- tion interest in the nontraditional student, an interest that was not evident in their individual grant descriptions. For example, the report discussed the activities of Baldwin-Wallace College, which had just completed a revision of its mission. The foundation gave the college $75,000 to implement its new plan. No mention was made in 120 the grant description that this plan included a shift in focus to older, nontraditional students. Further review of the list of grants uncovered one, to the Institute for Environmental Education for $41,950, not identified in the FGI search. Additionally, a $7,500 grant to the Institute for Development of Educational Activ- ities was in the FGI list but not the Annual Report. In 1978 the Director reiterated the need for more research to back up its projects. The report's emphasis was fl” “‘1‘- "..I' . \ _ a. 1 on Civic Affairs and there were a few tactful but dis- paraging remarks about the local political system. The foundation's stated goals were to encourage research and discussion on public questions and to review policy options on public affairs. It stressed its intention to bring information to the decision—makers and to the people and not to participate directly in the political process. As if the continuing problems with desegregation and racial isolation were not enough, the Education Program also had to contend with the crisis in public school financ- ing. School closings, cutbacks and no tax increases, prompted a major study of school finance options with recom- mendations for legislation. Other topics mentioned included college-community service projects and student scholarships. The FGI had identified two 1978 grants for continu- ing education. Two others were found in the report. One was a fourth year of funding for Kent State University's Project Dove at $12,000. This was a reentry program for 121 mature women that the FGI search had previously identified. The other grant was for $25,000 to Projects for Education Development to provide training for academic Chairpersons of postsecondary institutions. A summary of the Cleveland Foundation's contribu- tions for continuing and nontraditional education is pre- sented in Tables 5.4 and 5.5. The additional grants obtained from the report provided an increase of about 37 percent in the foundation's commitment to this area. Although this is less than 1 percent of their budget, it represents 8.18 percent of their contributions to post- secondary education. Correspondence with the Education Program Officer, Ms. Marian Nolan, provided more internal information than any other foundation contacted. In addition to providing all needed back issues of their Annual Reports, the founda- tion also sent copies of tables used for internal analysis of postsecondary activities. These tables gave information regarding total awards to postsecondary education and analy- sis of postsecondary grants by functional purpose. This information made it possible to compare con- tributions to continuing and nontraditional education to those made generally to postsecondary education, to all educational areas, and to total grant appropriations. It also provided a figure of 13.25 percent for 1974-78 grants "to expand access for nontraditional students." This can be compared with the 8.18 percent obtained by this 122 .oom.mm mm owumaa unmam on» on: uaommm Hmsccfi mama one .mmN.mw mca>flmoma mm Ham on» ca omuaommn mm3 Emamoam mmammo accumuxm m.wmmaaoo mx>o« vmh.vmm 0N omN.mva m mam.amm ma ooo.N¢ omm.hma omm.mm m v N ooo.hm omm.av *AmmWI. N H I ooo.m oov.mm mNo.mm H m N mmm.o>H oom.moa *0}- #U} mmm.ona 43:0)- amuoe muaomom Hmsccm 80am mGOauHoom mosum mane ca magnum aom amaoe Mom» m whoa hhma mhma twapcoz pom mcascmucoo How mucmaw .whmanmama mo wamEEom .aoaamoscm amaoaaac "coauwocsom onwam>mau mnaul.¢.m mamma 123 .AU xwocmmmd mom. malvama 0cm mataama mucmaw GOaumosom mamocooomumom mo mamaamc¢= a magma cam .noammm Hum .muaommm amocc< “mmoasom .a.m magma soamm macausnauucoo hamocoowmumom ma.m aN.m oa.m oa.m aa.Nm am.N vm.aa w m0 ucmoamm m mm mmm Na ama mm aaa om moa w mucmao acaumosom aMGOauaomaucoz cam moaSCaucou mGOausQaaucoo COaumosUm mo wa.mo mm.~m mo.vm mv.om mm.Nm am.wa m¢.oo w usmoumm m mm mmm m mom aao N amo a oma Naq a mom w mGOausnaaucou mamocoommumom macausnaaucou am.ma om.ma mm.aN mm.aa mm.ma om.aN am.ma m aam mo usmoawm m mem.oa mmo.N mma.~ Nmm.a mmv.a vvm.a aoo.a m mm mcoausnaau acou COaumoocm . . . . . . . mcoausnaaucoo mmm mm omm oa oao ca mmm oa «mm m omm m mmm a m ucmao aad amuoe mama aama mama mama mama mama Aooov mHMaaOD m0 mUGMmsona CH .malmama .coaumosom achHuapmaucoz pom moascaucou cam .cOaumosUm mamocoommumom .COauwooom ou mCOausnaaacou COaumocsom onwam>maUI|.m.m magma 124 case-study (see Table 5.6). The difference was, in part, accounted for in that this program area included scholar- ship aid to students which was not part of this study. Some relevant grants, however, would also have been included within the areas of institutional development or faculty and staff support. W The three case studies quite clearly show that there were a considerable number of grants not identified in the FGI search, and that the probable reasons for those omissions were those discussed in Chapter IV. The Carnegie Corporation showed a marked increase in grants to this field between 1973-75. Their peak of fourteen grants for $1.8 million in 1975 dropped sharply to $.6 million for six grants in 1976. That year Carnegie shifted its priorities toward improved fiscal management in educational institutions. Under reporting of Carnegie grants by the FGI search was principally the result of reduced descriptive data being entered into the data base. Career development was a major interest of the Lilly Endowment, particularly for faculty and clergy. Grants for continuing and nontraditional education actually increased as a proportion of all Lilly's contributions during 1977 and 1978 when the Endowment encountered invest- ment difficulties. Ninety-eight additional grants totaling $10.5 million were found in the Annual Reports. The 125 .mucwvsum amc0auaomaucoz How mmmoow Umpcmmxm How COaumHamoamm<+ .mGOaumaHmoamm¢ unmao COaumosom Hmnmam amuoem ma.N mm.m mmaammsm pom ucwemasvm oa.m mm.~m uaoamsm mamum can muasomm om.w mm.m noammmom anmomo¢ oammm mm.mm ma.om acmemoam>mn ucmfiuammmo no amcoausuaumca aw.v mm. mamamoam amsoausuapmcaamuca mm.av ma.oa moa>amm maaqssaoo + omm.¢ma www.ma + mam.omm mmm.aa mucmosum amcoauacmaucoz mom 4 amm.mam.mm . ama.m~m.mm mmmooa cmucmaxm mauvama .ucmao acaaaaz am mmoSaOCHv mauaama .mmomasm amsoauocsm an mucmao c0aumoswm hamccoommumom mo mammamc¢I|.m.m mamma 126 absence of many of these from the FGI search was due to the omission of the term "faculty development" from the list of descriptors. The grant descriptions in the Cleveland Foundation's Annual Reports were virtually identical to those provided by the FGI. This explains why only five additional grants were found in examining the six years of reports. Internal documents provided by the foundation to the researcher indicated a larger commitment to nontraditional education , than the half million dollars shown in this study. The lack of detail in their grant reporting is one reason. Another explanation is that the figures provided by the foundation included scholarship dollars which were excluded from this research. Although it is clear that foundations have been making more grants to continuing and nontraditional educa- tion than indicated by the FGI, the extent of underreport- ing varies with each foundation. The absence of standard terminology and definitions in the FGI is the major cause of the problem, although the lack of description provided by the foundations is certainly a contributing factor. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The two kinds of conclusions that emerge from this study address both the primary and secondary objectives articulated in Chapter III. Tentative conclusions can be drawn regarding the commitment of the selected foundations to continuing and nontraditional education. Other conclu- sions can be more definitely made concerning the useful- ness of the FGI and annual reports as resources for founda- tion grants research. The research questions provide a focus for both objectives and were therefore used, once again, as the organizational mechanism for this chapter. The major con- clusions have been underlined. Similarly, the recommendations are directed toward those two groups who could benefit from the two sets of conclusions. The chapter ends with recommendations to both those people interested in seeking continuing and non- traditional education grants and to those in the field of 127 128 philanthropy responsible for providing public information on foundation grants. Summary and Conclusions What has been the magnitude of support for continuing and nontraditional educational activities among founda- tions in this study? Has there been any yearly vari- ation in foundation support for these activities? What has been the proportion of foundation commitment to this area as a proportion of their annual domestic contributions. The data is discouraging. Between 1973 and 1978 fifteen of the largest philanthropic foundations gave only 434 grants contributing only $56.8 million for continuing and nontraditional education activities. Eighty-two percent of all the grants were made by five foundations and most of the appropriations, 64.7 percent, came from two foundations, Mott and Kellogg. Furthermore, 40 percent of the founda- tions averaged less than two grants a year, too few to war- rant individual analysis. Clearly overall interest in continuing and nontraditional education among the selected foundations has been slight. There are several possible explanations for this low performance. Principally, it is a matter of priorities. The number of programs worthy of foundation support is tre- mendous. Choices must be made and some areas will inevitably be neglected. Foundations develop their priorities in many ways. Perceived need and impact are two frequent criteria. The self-supporting nature of many continuing education programs 129 and the level of contributions from the Mott and Kellogg foundations, until recently, provided a picture of adequate philanthropic support. The Mott and Kellogg foundations have been recognized as leaders in this field for many years leaving other foundations free to pursue other priorities. With the publication of the findings and recommenda- tions of the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education it became evident that there was ample opportunity for addi- tional foundation funding particularly in developing more nontraditional programs for adult learners. There is a time lag, however, in changing past program priorities and commitments. Carnegie and Lilly showed an increase in funding this area by 1974. That year Carnegie increased its grants to continuing and nontraditional education by a third. Lilly had jumped 48 percent.1 The Ford Foundation's increase came in 1975 when their grants rose 66 percent, giving over $2.2 million. The proportion of a foundation's total contribu- tions going to continuing andnontraditional education is another way to ascertain levels of interest and support for these activities. Kellogg's commitment averaged 15.5 percent of their total domestic budget over the period of the study. Mott's was equally high at 14.5 percent of all their U.S. contributions. This percentage jumped for both foundations in 1975, from 14 percent to 21.7 percent for Kellogg and from 9 percent to 22 percent 130 for Mott. The Carnegie Corporation and the Lilly Endow— ment also gave greater shares to this field after the release of the Commission reports, although their respective 1974 increases over 1973 were small at 3.9 percent and 2.9 percent. Other foundations studied devoted less than 2 percent of their budgets to this field. Before any real momentum was generated for funding continuing and nontraditional education, three events inter- vened, probably putting a damper on further foundation activity in the field. The_general economic recession that hit the country in 1974 affected foundation contributions to all fields. Investment portfolios differ with each institution so the impact of the recession varied. The Lilly Endowment suffered the most damage with assets and grants falling sharply in 1977. The other two events are related and should perhaps be considered together. On October 12, 1976, the Mondale Bill on Lifelong Learning was signed into law, becoming 2 The Title I, Part B, of the U.S. Higher Education Act. Act, establishing lifelong learning as a federal policy, carried no appropriation. Generally it has been the prac- tice of foundations to support new program ventures in areas not receiving federal assistance.3 Passage of the Lifelong Learning Act brought the perception of federal support for continuing education activities and many founda- tions turned to other educational needs. By 1977 the annual reports of Carnegie, Lilly and Cleveland foundations showed 131 a marked shift toward funding programs for better fiscal management and use of resources in higher education insti- tutions. There were also numerous grants made for training and development of academic administrators. The pressing financial needs of higher education and the assumption of federal responsibility for lifelong learning quite possibly deflected foundation funds away from continuing and nontraditional education grants. What types of institutions and organizations have been recipients of foundation grants for continuing and non- traditional education activities? As a recipient of foundation grants in this area, how does higher educa- tion compare with other institutions and organizations in the level of support they have received? To what extent have individual recipients been awarded multiple grants for continuing and nontraditional education activities? The institutions and organizations in this study fell within seven categories of grant recipients: public and private higher education institutions, community col- leges, local school systems, State Boards of Education, non-profit educational organizations and other non-profit groups. The assumption made at the beginning of this study that foundations would carry their tradition of support to higher education into this field was obvious. Both public and private colleges and universities received 263 of the 434 grants and $36.2 million in appropriations. These figures represent slightly more than 60 percent of all grants in this study. 132 The recommendation made by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, to look beyond traditional education institutions and encourage other community organizations to also become providers of educational programs for adults, does not appear to have had an impact on the foundations.4 Although non-profit organizations received 30 percent of grant appropriations, 22 percent went to agencies already involved in education, primarily on a state or national level. Favoritism toward specific institutions and organi- zations is one criticism that has been made of many founda— tions. It is an allegation which carries some support.5 Analysis of grants to individual recipients in this study, however! showed no indication of preferential treatment for any recipient. Only two universities and three non- profit organizations received multiple grants, for the most part from multiple foundations. There were two exceptions. Cornell University received four of five grants from the Carnegie Corporation. These grants support one major education project for work- ing women. The Mississippi Action for Community Education, a non-profit organization, received $1.2 million in five grants from three foundations. All these grants were for operating support and three, totaling $837,500, were from the Ford Foundation. It is increasingly rare for foundations to provide grants for general operations. The Mississippi Action for 133 Community Education was the only organization in this study that might be considered a preferred recipient. What kinds of continuing and nontraditional education activities have received foundation support? Which have received the most support? Is there any relation- ship between the type of recipient and the type of activity funded? Have there been specific kinds of programs that have received special attention from individual foundations? Has there been any interest in grants directed at the learning needs of particular groups of adults? When looking only at the numerical totals, Community Education, with 165 grants, appears to be the program area that received the most foundation interest. The View is one-sided, however, because 142 of those grants came from the Mott Foundation. Their grants went overwhelmingly to colleges and universities, and to the Flint, Michigan Board of Education. Mott pioneered the Community Education model and has stayed behind it, basically alone. Other foundations appear to regard this area as Mott's domain. The twenty-three grants made by other foundations, although classified as community education, were not for programs developed under this model. Instead, these were social action and community outreach grants with non-profit organizations as the recipients. Continuing education activities with 125 grants for over $22 million in appropriations, received the broadest base of support from all the foundations. Professional continuing education programs dominated grants in this category showinggclear foundation preference for career 134 development. There was virtually no support for adult basic education, high school equivalency, or English as a second language programs, perhaps reflecting the assumption that these types of programs are government responsibilities. Training, which is obviously career related, ranked third in the number of grants received. All the foundations supported training programs of one type or another. The Ford Foundation seemed to favor this area of adult educa- tion, particularly management training. The Mott Foundation also considered training an important aspect of their com- munity education activities, providing $847,344 for this purpose. There was no apparent relationship between the type of recipient and the_purpose of the grant. Higher education institutions simply dominated everywhere. Training was the only type of activity where non-profit organizations were equally represented. Twenty-five grants for training pro- grams were awarded to non-profit groups, usually profes- sional associations. Higher education institutions received twenty-two grants. Learning Resource Centers and External Degree Pro- grams each garnered $2.5 million in grants, accounting for half of the $10 million appropriated for nontraditional edu- cation activities. With about eighty-six grants, these more experimental programs were obviously of interest to founda- tions. Except for a few very large programs, such as New York's Empire State College, these grants were small. 135 Colleges and Universities were again, the primary recipi- ent. Often foundations concentrate their contributions on specific subjects within program areas. This results in grants to several recipients for developing proqrams with similar objectives. These "pet projects" sometimes reflect the interest of a particular foundation trustee or benefactor, or may be based upon the coverage a partic- ular problem has received in the press. In this study there were several topics that were singled out for special attention from one or more foundations. Continuing education programs for health care administrators caught the interest of the Kellogg Founda- tion. Fifty percent of their grants went to programs in this area with contributions of $9.9 million. For the Ford Foundation, professional training for visual artists was a project that resulted in eleven grants over a two year period for a total of almost a million dollars. Ford also had an interest in transferring the concept of British Open University to the U.S. They gave $1.2 million for five grants to this project. The Lilly Endowment favored more education for America's clergy. Twenty-five percent of the Endowment's grants went to continuing education programs for the ministers of many religious faiths. Faculty development was an example of a problem area that received considerable attention from both 136 foundations and the academic press. Lilly, Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Mellon all supported programs for faculty improvement, providing over $3.3 million in grant appropri- ations. Almost 20 percent of the grants found by the FGI went to special groups of adult learners. Women and minorities were the two special clientggroups that received the most attention. Carnegie gave $1.7 in four- teen grants for women's programs. The Rockefeller Founda— tion supported minorities in eleven of their fourteen grants. Like most of the grants in this study, the grants to women and minorities focused on training and career development. Few grants identifiably served the needs of the economically disadvantaged. How do those foundations that have specified an interest in adult education compare in their funding patterns to other foundations in this study? The contributions made by the Mott and Kellogg foundations to continuing and nontraditional education activities are so great, compared to the other foundations, that their commitment would be obvious even if it was not alreadyprecognized in both academic andpphilanthropic circles. One or both of these philanthropic giants has domi- nated almost every aspect of this research. They made the most grants and contributed the most money. A greater portion of their annual budgets went to this field than any other foundation. Just as the size of Ford Foundation's annual budget distorts the‘overall picture of foundation 137 giving, the contributions of these two foundations skew the analysis of grants to continuing and nontraditional education. The Lilly Endowment also had an expressed interest in this area which was reflected in their contributions. The adjusted figures shown in Chapter V presents Lilly with a third place ranking, behind Kellogg and Mott, with $10 million contributed in ninety-eight grants. The per- centage of their annual contributions going to this area was 6.2 percent, considerably above most of the other foundations. Unlike the others, Lilly's grants to this area did not drop proportionately when their assets were reduced in 1977. How adequate are the publicly available sources of foundations grants information for research into their grant-making activities? This research question, originally conceived as secondary, to the intent of this study, in the final anal- ysis has become the central concern. In the process of analyzing the grants produced by the FGI search, several inconsistencies were uncovered. These included: 1. A very small number of grants from the Lilly Endowment, a foundation which has an expressed interest in Adult Education. 2. Numerous grants of the Carnegie Corporation, iden- tified during the preliminary research, were not 138 included in the grant listings provided by the FGI. 3. Internal documents provided by the Cleveland Foundation showed substantially greater appropri- ations to nontraditional education than indicated by FGI data. As these discrepancies were investigated, the inade- quacies of both the FGI and foundation Annual Reports became increasingly apparent. The shortcomings of the publicly available sources of foundation grants informa- tion proved to be the major finding of this study. The usefulness of the FGI, like most other computer information systems, is based upon two variables, the accu- racy of the information put into it and the specificity of the request for information output. Only a third of the foundations that supply grant information to the FGI use the reporting forms developed by the Foundation Center. The other foundations simply provide their Annual Reports. Each foundation decides how much description and detail to provide on each grant. This information is entered into the FGI by the Foundation Center who selects each grant's category and key words: The accuracy of the information in the FGI is largely dependent on the degree of familiarity with the subject matter held by those responsible for submitting the grants to the FGI. The categories and descriptors 139 chosen by these people vary with each individual's knowl- edge of the subject and its terminology. Terminology is the complicating factor for both entering and receiving FGI grant listing_. In fields where standard terminology is lacking there is little consistency in the use of terms to describe similar events and the same terms may be used to describe dissimilar events.6 This is especially true in continuing education. Many different constituencies, including sponsors and providers of adult learning opportunities, have coined terms to dis- tinguish their activities from one another. Consequently, the descriptors selected for use by the foundation, or the Foundation Center in entering the grants and those chosen by the researcher in formulating the FGI search may or may not match. The best example of this is "faculty develop- ment," used in the Lilly Endowment's grants, while the researcher used the generic descriptor, "professional development." The larger the list of descriptors developed by the grants researcher the higher the likelihood of identifying all apprOpriate grants. This method, however, also gene- rates large numbers of inappropriate grants which must be eliminated. This complicates the research process and sub- stantially increases the costs. In addition to hindering the identification of rele- vant grants, the lack of description in the grant listing also limits analysis of the grants that are produced by 140 the FGI search. Terminology is again the problem. A grant listing that has "continuing education for clergy" as its purpose is not very enlightening about the nature of the grant. The case studies provided valuable evidence concern- ing the underreporting of grants relevant to this research. The substantial number of Carnegie and Lilly grants not identified by the FGI prompted the researcher to question {a the Foundation Center staff about the data base. The limi- :34)?- JE _-- tations of the FGI were not generally explained to those who used the system for research. The case studies also pointed out the insufficiency of the annual reports as an alternative to the FGI. Foundation annual reports provide very general over- views of foundation activity. Generally, however, the information on individual grants is less than that obtained through the FGI. The advantage of the reports over the FGI is that all the grants for any particular year are included, identifying grants that used different descriptors for similar purposes. The Annual Reports when combined with the FGI pre- sent a reasonable accurate picture of foundation grant activity in continuing and nontraditional education. The process, however, is impractical. It is time consuming, costly, produces a lot of duplication and is also subject to human error. 141 The researcher does not feel that the amount and nature of unreported_grants significantly alter the basic conclusions of this study concerning the patterns of founda- tion contributions to continuing and nontraditional educa- Eipn. The grants that were selected by the FGI were repre- sentative of those made by the selected foundations to this field. The magnitude of funding for this area was small for the six years, except among those few foundations that have made adult education their specialty. There was a definite drop in funding for these activities after 1976, which corresponds with the passing, by Congress, of the Lifelong Learning Act. The grants that the foundations made were primarily for various kinds of career development programs. Higher Education was the favored recipient by a large margin. The difficulties encountered with the FGI and the annual reports can now be taken into consideration in designing further research. The problems are correctable if the philanthrppic institutions provide the time, money, and the commitment. Recommendations The discussion of the research findings and the problems with the research instruments lead to some very obvious recommendations. Most of these suggestions are 142 technical or procedural. They are directed at both those who award grants and those who seek them. The overriding recommendation to foundations is that more time, energy, money and commitment should be given to increasing the amount of information on foundation activities available to the public. Specific steps that could be taken include: 1. Appropriate more funds to the Foundation Center to facilitate improvements in the FGI and more statistical analysis. , 2. Provide more description of individual grants to the Foundation Center for use in the FGI and in additional data analysis. 3. Program areas for internal record keeping and grants analysis should be standardized. Many foundations, for example, could not provide information on the number and amount of appropriations made to higher education. The Foundation Center needs to find ways to correct the shortcomings of the FGI and its search procedures. Although the universe of possible subjects for foundation grants is so large as to make a thesaurus of descriptors for foundation grants impractical, some instrument for standardized terminology is needed for the "soft science" areas. The Foundation Center could also improve consis- tency in the FGI by providing better guidelines and train- ing for those people who classify grants for the FGI. Most important, the Center has a responsibility to inform researchers of the limitations of the FGI before they undertake a search for grant information. 143 For grants seekers and researchers the principle recommendation emerging from this study is that they recog- nize the limitations of the FGI and not rely on it for their data unless they can develop a complete list of descriptors and possess a large research budget. Finally, there are the suggestions for additional research. Comparative analysis of foundation's contribu- tions patterns has been inhibited by lack of information. Nonetheless, it is research that needs to be done in most subject areas and developing accurate methodologies toward this end should be pursued. Another area which merits investigation concerns the way foundation program officers obtain their knowledge and perceptions of program needs within their fields. The influence of authoritative sources, such as professional publications, on funding priorities would be valuable knowledge for those seeking foundation grants. ENDNOTES ENDNOTES Chapter I lEarl F. Cheit and Theodore E. Lobman, "Private Philanthropy and Higher Education: History, Current Impact, and Public Policy Considerations," in The Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs Research Papers, Volume II, Philanthropic Fields of Interest (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1977), p. 466. 21bid., p. 471. 3National Commission on Financing Post Secondary Education, Financing Post-Secondary Education in the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), P. 107. 4Cheit, p. 470. 5Commission on Foundations and Private PhilanthrOpy, Peter Person, Chairman. Summary News Release (May, 1970). 6Michael O'Keefe,.The Adult, Education, and Public Policy (Palo Alto, CA: The Aspen Institute Program in Education for a Changing Society, 1977), p. 2. 7Ibid., p. 3. 8Ibid., p. 1. For a more complete discussion of the demographics of the last part of this century, see Peter A. Morris, The Demographic Context of Educational Policy Planning (Palo Alto, CA: The Aspen Institute Program for Education in a Changing Society, 1975). 9Some of the organizations that have formed groups to examine and act on the future of higher education with specific emphasis on nontraditional students and programs include: Task Force of the Department of Health, Education 144 145 and Welfare (Newman Commission), The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The American Council on Education, Association of Junior and Community Colleges, and CEEB's Future Directions for a Learning Society. 10The term "Adult Education" is used by the Founda— tion Center to define a field of interest within the area of Education. It is used in this research question and occasionally throughout the paper when discussing founda- tions that are listed under this field of interest desig- nation in the Foundation Directory. 11The American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel, Inc., 1978 Annual Report, Giving U.S.A., p. 12. 12The Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs, Giving in America, Toward a Stronger Voluntary Sector, 1977, pp. 159-167. 13The definitions of Foundations and Foundation types have been taken from the Introduction to the 1977 Foundation Directory, 6th Edition, The Foundation Center. Definitions relating to education have been taken from the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, A Handbook of Standard Terminology for Describing Adult Learning Opportunities (National Review Draft, March, 1978). They have been modified as necessary to fit the purposes of this study. 14Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Toward a Learning Society (McGraw-Hill, 1973), pp. ll-l3. 15Cheit, p. 486. Chapter II 1Ernest Hollis, "Evolution of the Philanthropic Foundation," Educational Record XX (1939), pp. 575-78. 2Marion Freemont-Smith, Foundations & Government (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965), p. 14. 3Ibid., p. 36. 4Ernest Hollis, Philanthropic Foundations & Higher Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938), p. 20. 146 5Jesse B. Sears, Philanthropy in the History of American Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior, Bureau of Education, 1922). 6Robert Calkins, Impact of Foundations on Higher Education (Chicago: Commission on Colleges and Univer- sities, 1954), 28 pp. 7D. Roy Hostetter, The Challenge Grant & Higher Education, June, 1966 (Washington, D.C.: American College Public Relations Assoc.), Chapter II. 8Hollis, p. 21. 9Robert S. Morrison, "Foundations and Universities," Daedalus (Fall, 1964), p. 111. 10Warrant Weaver, U.S. Philanthropic Foundations: Their History, Structure, Management and Record (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), pp. 26-38. 11Andrew Carnegie, The Gospel of Wealth and Other Timely Essays (New York: Century Company, 1900), p. 16. 12Weaver, pp. 29-31. lBIbid., pp. 26-38. l4Calkins. 15Hostetter, Chapter II. l6Collins. l7Ibid. 18For the period preceding 1950, when Internal Revenue records were first open for public inspection, historical data was very sparse and unreliable. A few Directories, published at irregular intervals, included the names and occasionally dates of origin of those foun- dations that had become known. The information available from these sources has been presented in Table 1. In Table 2, data has been presented on 5,436 foundations that as of 1971 had assets in excess of $500,000 or made annual 147 grants of at least $25,000 as reported in The 4th Edition of The Foundation Directory (New York: The Foundation Center). 19The Foundation Directory, 7th Edition (New York: The Foundation Center, 1979), p. xii. Previous editions of the Directory only included estimates of the total number of foundations. In 1977-78 The Foundation Center undertook a detailed analysis of 28,000 non-profit organi- zations in the IRS files. They determined that there were 21,505 active, grant-making foundations filing data with the IRS from 1975-77. 20John Hunter Dane, An Analysis of Financial Support of Philanthropic Foundations to General Programs in U.S. Higher Education (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1974), p. 20. 21The Foundation Directory, 7th Edition (New York: The Foundation Center, 1979). 22The Foundation Directory, 2nd Edition, 1964, pp. 10-16. 23John Landford. Congress and Foundations in the 20th Century (Riverfalls, Wisconsin: Wisconsin State Uni- versity Press, 1964), pp. 30-32. 24Weaver, p. 175. 25F. Emerson Andrews, Patman and Foundations: Review and Assessment (New York: The Foundation Center, 1968). 26U.S. Department of Treasury. Report on Private Foundations (U.S. Government Printing Office, February 2, 1965). 27Stanley S. Weithorn, "Summary of the Tax Reform Act of 1969" (unpublished report prepared for The Founda- tion Center, February 9, 1970). 28Commission on Foundations and Private Philan- thropy. Summary News Release, May, 1970 (The Foundation Center Files), P. 2. ngbid., p. 5. 148 30Ibid., p. 6. 31Commission on Private Philanthropy & Public Needs. Giving in Americay Toward a Stronger Voluntary Sector, 1975, pp. 1-5. 321bid. 33Waldemar Nielson, The Big Foundations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972); and Merle Curti and Roderick Nash, Philanthropy in the Shaping of American Higher Education (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1965). 34Lawanna Blout, Contributions of Selected Private Philanthropic Foundations for Higher Education Administra- tion, 1966-75 (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, 1978), p. 44. 35Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and the Super Rich (New York: Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1968), P. 385. 36Roy M. Hall, Private Philanthropy & Public Pur- pose (Washington, D.C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1963), p. v. 37Robert Havighurst et al., Education and Major Philanthropic Foundations (unpublished report to the National Academy of Education, April, 1976), pp. 1-5. 381bid., pp. 1-5. 39Digest of Educational Statistics, 1977 Edition, (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Education Statistics, 1978), Tables 128, 134 and 135. 40Council for Financial Aid to Education, Annual Survey of Voluntary78upport of Education, 1977-78. 41Robert Colvard and A. M. Bennet, "Patterns of Concentration on Large Foundation Grants to U.S. Colleges and Universities" (Iowa City: American College Testing Service, number 63, April, 1974). 42See for example, Waldemar Nielson. The Big Foundations; Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and the Super 149 Rich; Fred Crossland, "The Push-Pull of Foundation Collars"; College Board Review, Winter, 1973; and Alan Jones, Philanthropic Foundations and the University of Michigan, 1922-65 (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971). 43Cross1and, Ibid., p. 1. 44Ibid. 45Committee for Economic Development, Management and Financing of Colleges, 1973, p. 74 (The Foundation Center Files). 46Earl Cheit and Theodore Lobman, "Private Philan- thropy and Higher Education: History, Current Impact and Public Policy Considerations" in Philanthropic Fields of Interest, Part I, Areas of Activity (Research papers sponsored by the Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs, 1975), p. 493. 47Fred Hechinger, "The Foundations and Education" in Warren Weaver, p. 410. 48Digest of Educational Statistics, RP- 83 and 130. 49U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Annual Means Income, Lifetime Income and Education Attain- ment of Men in the United States." 50Earl Cheit, The New Depression in Higher Educa- tion (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. vii. 51Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Quality and Inequality. New Levels of Federal Responsibility for Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968), pp. 3-9. 52Clark Kear in Earl Cheit, The New Dppression in Higher Education, p. vii. 53June O'Neill, Resource Uses in Higher Education: Trends in Outputs and Inputs! 1930-1967 (New York: Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching, 1971), p. 34. 54Michael O'Keefe, The Adult, Education and Public Policy (Palo Alto, CA: Aspen Institute, 1977), p. 5. 150 55Projections of Educational Statistics to 1986-87 (NCES, DHEW, 1978 Edition), P. 27. 56O'Keefe, p. 1. 57National Center for Educational Statistics, The Condition of Education, A Statistical Report on the Con- dition of Education in the United States, March, 1976. 588. Moses, The Learning ForceygAn Approach to the Politics of Education (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse Uni- versity Research Corporation, March, 1970). 59Solomon Arberter et al., Forty Million Americans in Career Transition, The Need for Information (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1978). 60Allen Tough, The Adult's Learning Project (Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1971). 61Peter A. Morrison, The Demographic Context of Educational Policy Planning (Palo Alto, CA: The Aspen Institute, 1975). 62O'Keefe, p. 3. 631bid., p. 2. 64Adult and Continuing Education: The Next 10 Years (ERIC Clearinghouse on Career Education, Information Series #114, 1978). PP. 11-16. 65Some of Commissions Task Forces that have addressed the need for more educational opportunities for adults include: The Commission on Non-Traditional Study. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The Newman Com- missions, The Notre Dame Task Force on Continuing Educa- tion, The American Council on Education and The Associ- ation of American Colleges. 66Frank Newman et al., Report on Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971). The Second Newman Report, National Policy and Highgg Education (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1973). 151 67David Loganecker and Patrick F. Klein, "Why Commissions Miss the Mark," Change Magazine, October, 1977, p. 43. 68Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Reports (twenty-one reports plus a summary volume) (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970-75). 69Higher/Wider/Education: A Report on Open Learning (The Ford Foundation, June, 1976), p. 6. 70The Commission on Non-Traditional Study, Diversity by Design (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973). 71For example, see issues of Alternative Education, The Journal of Non-Traditional Studies (New York Human Sciences Press) and New Directions for Experimental Learn- ing (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.). 72Szczypkowski, Ronald B. The Participation of Philanthropic Foundations on Continuing Professional Education (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1971). Chapter III lCarter Good and Douglas Scates, Methods of Research (New York: Appleton Century Crofts, Inc., 1954), p. 255. 21bid. 3Lee Noe, editor, The Foundation Grants Index 1978 (New York: The Foundation Center, 1980), P. vii. 41bid. 5The ranking of foundations is made by the American Association of Fund-Raising Counsels, Inc. and is published in their 1974 and 1979 annual reports, Giving USA. The AAFRC ranks the top fifty foundations according to their published annual grant payments. The Foundation Center ranks the top twenty foundations according to their total assets. 152 6The Duke Endowment, Kresge, and Houston Foundations do not make program grants. Kettering is an operating foundation and the Commonwealth Fund and Fleischman Founda- tion have not been making new grants for several years. 7The Irvine, Carter, Bush and Welch Foundations have not provided information to The Foundation Center's Grants Index. 8American Association of Fund-Raising Counsels, Inc. Giving USA, 1979 Annual Report, p. 13. 9Julian Levi and Sheldon Steinback, "Patterns of Giving to Higher Education II: An Analysis of Voluntary Support of American Colleges and Universities, 1970-71" (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1972). 10IndecksC Copyright, 1968, Indecks, Inc., Arlington, Vermont. llSusan Alan, editor, The College Handbook (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1975). Chapter IV 1Marianna 0. Lewis, editor, The Foundation Directory, 7th Edition (New York: The Foundation Center, 1979), p. xx. 21bid. 3Lee Noe, editor, The Foundation Grants Index, 1979 (New York: The Foundation Center, 1980), p. iv. 4Ibid., p. vii. 5The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, under a grant from the National Center for Educa— tion Statistics, developed a draft Handbook of Standard Terminology for Describing_Adult Learning Opportunities. The project took two years and was never published. 6The Foundation Center is set up to answer questions regarding Foundation grants. They were always the first source contacted by the researcher. There were, however, 153 certain items of information that the Center could not supply. In this regard, the Carnegie and Cleveland Foundations were the only ones to cooperate fully with the researcher. They supplied all the information they had available and the program officers made themselves available for interviews. Chapter V 1Foundation Center, Sourcebook Profiles, "The Carnegie Corporation of New York." 2Havighurst, p. 8-1. 3F. R. Keppel, The Foundation: Its Place in American Life (New York: Macmillan Co., 1930), pp. 94-95. 4Robert Havighurst; Donald Holsinger; and Eric Lunde, "Education and Major Philanthropic Foundations (an unpublished report to the National Academy of Education, April, 1976), P. 13-1. 51bid., p. 13-2. 6Lilly Endowment, Inc., The First Twenty-Five Years: 1937-1962 (Indianapolis, Indiana, pp. 15-17). 7Havighurst, p. 13-3. 8The Foundation Center, Sourcebook Profiles, "The Lilly Endowment." 9Lilly Endowment, Inc., p. 9. 10Lilly Endowment, Inc., Annual Report 1975, p. 5. 11The Cleveland Foundation, Trust for All Time, 12Sourcebook Profiles, "The Cleveland Foundation." 13The Cleveland Foundation, Annual Report 1977, p.2. 154 Chapter VI lData concerning the Carnegie Corporation and the Lilly Endowment is taken from the revised tables presented in Chapter V. 2public Law 94-482, The Education Amendments of 1976, Title I, Part B, sections 131-134. 3Earl Cheit and Theodore Lobman, "Private Philan- thropy and Higher Education," Philanthropic Fields of Interest Part I Areas of Activity (Research papers sponsored by the Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs, 1975), p. 493. 4The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education Toward a Learning Society (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1973), pp. 11-13. 5Robert Colvard and A. M. Bennett, "Patterns of Concentration in Large Foundation Grants to U.S. Colleges and Universities" (Iowa City: American College Testing Service, number 63, April, 1974). 6National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, A Handbook of Standard Terminology for Describing Adult Learning Opportunities (National Center for Education Statistics, unpublished draft, March, 1978), P. 2. BI BLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adult and Continuing Education: The Next 10 Years. ERIC Clearinghouse on Career Education. Information Series #114, 1978. Alan, Susan, editor. The College Handbook. College Entrance Examination Board, New York, 1975. American Association of Fund-Raising Counsels, Inc. Giving U.S.A. 1978 Annual Report. Andrews, F. Emerson. Patman and Foundations: Review and Assessment. The Foundation Center, New York, 1968. Annual Reports of 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978. The Carnegie Corporation of New York. Annual Reports of 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978. The Lilly Endowment, Indianapolis, Indiana. Annual Reports of 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978. The Cleveland Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. Arbeiter, Solomon et a1. Forty Million Americans in Career Transitionerhe Need for Information. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1978. Blout, Lawanna. Contributions of Selected Private Philan- thropic Foundations for Higher Education Adminis- tration. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer- sity of Wisconsin, 1978. Calkins, Robert. Impact of Foundations on Higher Education. Commission on Colleges and Universities, Chicago, 1954. Carnegie, Andrew. The Gospel of Wealth and Other Essays. Century Company, New York, 1900. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Toward a Learning Society. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1973. 155 A 156 Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Qpality and Inequality. New Levels of Federal Responsibility for Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1968. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Reports. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1970-75. Cheit, Earl. The New Depression in Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1971. Cheit, Earl F., and Theodore E. Lobman. "Private Philan- thropy and Higher Education: History, Current Impact and Public Policy Consideration." Com- mission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs. Research Papersy_Volume II, Philanthropic Fields of Interest. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1977. Colvard, Robert, and A. M. Bennett. "Patterns of Concen- tration in Large Foundation Grants to U.S. Colleges and Universities." Iowa City, Iowa: American College Testing Service, number 63, April, 1974. Commission on Foundations and Private PhilanthrOpy. Peter Peterson, Chairman. Summary News Release, May, 1970. Commission on Nontraditional Study. Diversity by Design. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1973. Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs. John Filei, Chairman. Giving in America, Toward a Stranger Voluntary Sector, 1975. Crossland, Frederick. "The Push-Pull of Foundation Dollars." College Board Review, winter, 1973. Council for Financial Aid to Education. Annual Survey of Voluntary Support of Education. New York, 1977-78. Curti, Merle, and Roderick Nash. Philanthropy in the Sheping of American Higher Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1965. Dane, John Hunter. An Analysis of Financial Support of Philanthropic Foundations to General Programs in U.S. Higher Education. Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Pittsburgh, 1974. Foundation Center. "The Carnegie Corporation of New York." Sourcebook Profiles. New York: The Foundation Center. 157 Foundation Center. "The Cleveland Foundation." Sourcebook Profiles. New York: The Foundation Center. Foundation Center. "The Lilly Endowment." Sourcebook Profiles. New York: The Foundation Center. Freemont-Smith, Marion. Foundations and Government. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965. Hall, Roy M. Private Philanthropy and Public Purpose. Washington, D.C.: American Association of School . Administrators, 1963. Good, Carter, and Douglas Scates. Methods of Research. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, Inc., 1954. Havighurst, Robert; D. B. Holsinger; and E. S. Lunde. Education and Major Philanthropic Foundations. Unpublished report to the National Academy of Education, April, 1976. Higher/Wider/Education: A Report on Open Learning. The Ford Foundation, June, 1976. Hollis, Ernest. "Evolution of the Philanthropic Founda- tion." Educational Record xx, 1939. Hollis, Ernest. Philanthropic Foundations and Higher Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938. Hostetter, D. Roy. The Challenge Grant and Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American College Public Relations Association, June, 1966. Howard, Nathaniel. Trust for All Time. The Story of the Cleveland Foundation and the Community Trust Movement. Cleveland, Ohio: The Cleveland Founda- tion, 1963. Jones, Allan. Philanthropic Foundations and the University of Michigan, 1922-65. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Univer- sity of Michigan, 1971. Keppel, F. R. The Foundation: Its Place in American Life. New York: Macmillan Co., 1930. Lankford, John. Congress and Foundations in the 20th Century. River Falls, Wisconsin: Wisconsin State University Press, 1964. 158 Levi, Julian, and Sheldon Steinback. "Patterns of Giving to Higher Education II: An Analysis of Voluntary Support of American Colleges and Universities, 1970-71. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1972. Lewis, Marianna 0., editor. The Foundation Directory, 2nd Edition. New York: The Foundation Center, 1964. Lewis, Marianna 0., editor. The Foundation Directory, 4th Edition. New York: The Foundation Center, 1971. Lewis, Marianna 0., editor. The Foundation Directory, 6th Edition. New York: The Foundation Center, 1977. Lewis, Marianna O., editor. The Foundation Directory, 7th Edition. New York: The Foundation Center, 1979. Lilly Endowment, Inc. The First Twenty-five Years 1937- 1962. Indianapolis, Indiana. Lindemann, E. C. Wealth and Culture. New York: Harcourt and Brace, 1936. Loganecker, David, and Patrick F. Klein.’ "Why Commissions Miss the Mark." Change Magazine, October, 1977. Lundberg, Ferdinand. The Rich and the Super Rich. New York: Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1968. Morris, Peter A. The Demographic Context of Educational Policy Planning. Palo Alto, CA: The Aspen Institute for Education in a Changing Society, 1975. Morrison, Robert S. "Foundations and Universities." Daedalus, Fall, 1964. Moses, S. The Learning Force, An Approach to the Politics of Education. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse Univer- sity Research Corp., March, 1970. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Educational Statistics, 1977 Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978. National Center for Educational Statistics. The Condition of Education, a Statistical Report on the Condition of Education in the United States. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, March, 1976. 159 National Center for Education Statistics. Projections of Educational Statistics to 1986-87. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1978. National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. A Handbook of Standard Terminology for Describing Adult Learning Opportunities. National Review Draft, March, 1978. Financing Post Secondary Education in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department Printing Office, 1973. National Commission on Financing Postsecondary Education. in 4 I Newman, Frank et a1. Report on Higher Education. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. ,n Newman, Frank et al. The Second Newman Report; National Report; National Policy and Higher Education. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1973. Nielson, Waldemar. The Big Foundations. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972. Noe, Lee, editor. The Foundation Grants Index 1978. The Foundation Center, 1980. O'Keefe, Michael. The Adult! Education and Public Poligy. Palo Alto, CA: The Aspen Institute Program in Edu- cation for a Changing Society, 1977. O'Neill, June. Resource Uses in Higher Education: Trends in Outputs and Inputs 1930-1967. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach- ing, 1971. Sears, Jesse B. Philanthropy in the History of American Education. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Education, Department of Interior, 1922. Szczypkowski, Ronald B. The Participation of Philanthropic Foundations in Continuing Professional Education. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1971. Tough, Allen. The Adult's Learning Project. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Canada, 1971. U.S. Department of Treasury. Repprt on Private Foundations. U.S. Government Printing Office, February 2, 1965. 160 Weaver, Warren. U.S. Philanthropic Foundations: Their History! Structure, Management and Record. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Weithorn, Stanley S. "Summary of the Tax Reform Act of 1969." Unpublished report prepared for the Founda- tion Center, February 9, 1970. 6 ‘L- APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE FOUNDATION GRANTS INDEX AND COMPUTER SEARCH FORMS seaacu roan a APPENDIX A THE FOUNDATION CENTER 888 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019 Telephone (212) 975-1120 REQUEST FOR CUSTOM SEARCH OF FOUNDATION GRANTS INDEX DATA BASE This data base provides information on actual foundation grants of SSMJO or more to non—profit organizations and can be used to identify foundations making grants in particular subject areas. About 500 foundations are represented, most of which are among the larger ones in the country. This data base holds records of over 50,000 grants from 1973 to date. For brief descriptions of our data bases and the types of questions that can be answered by each. please consult the Guide to The Foundation Center Associates Program or the brochure entitled Foundation Center Data Bases and Computer Services. SCOPE OF SEARCH: Please describe fully the topic for which you desire grants information. SPECIFIC INCLUSIONS: If there are any descriptive or technical terms likely to be used to describe or identify a grant in your search, please list them below. RESTRICTIONS: Enter any limitations or exclusions you wish applied to your search, e.g. geographic locations. dollar amount of grants, recipient organization type, years. 161 162 PRICING There is a basic minimum charge of 850 for a listing of grant records up to a maximum of 75. All records beyond the 75th are charged at the rate of 304 each. Bearir‘ in mind this pricing schedule, please indicate the number of records you wish printed. I ] All I I If not all, state maximum number: Please do not enclose a check with your request form. You will be billed when you receive your printout. O C 0 sequence lenient!) If you have a preference, please indicate the order in which you would like the grants arranged by checking one of the boxes below. If subarrangements are desired, please indicate by ranking preferences, e.g. (l) by foundation name, and then (2) by recipient name. ] Alphabetically by state location of foundations ] Alphabetically by state location of recipients ] Alphabetically by foundation names I Alphabetically by recipient names I 8y dollar amount of grants, lowest to highest ] By dollar amount of grants, hitcst to lowest . 0 O MAILING INFORMATION Date of Request: Account No.: Name: Title: Organization: Address: Telephone: May we reverse charges if we find it necessary to call you in order to clarify your search request? (Does not applytoareacode212) [ ] Yes [ ] No 0 O O AGREEMENT I agree that the material furnished by The Foundation Center in response to this request is for my private use or for the internal use of my organization. I further agree to restrict its circulation to authorized persons within my organization, and that it shall not be adapted, reproduced, or sold for commercial gain. Signature: (Fer Foundation Center U. Only) Date of search: No. of records printed: Completed by: . Amount Due: ugh '37- 163 Computer Search Execution Fth2?:FDUNDRTIDN BRENTS 73-80/FEB (Conn. FDUNDHTIDN CTR.) SET 17:": DtscntPTzON (+80RIO-RHDI-INDT) 7 .Execurs3u6v/87 ? .Exzcurz3u6v/88 284 253 142 0 253 21 H H gun @@H30””&VONOQNOOOHQOOO N new; OH-tlaho 21596 4552 31488 45854 31488 144 ' 47 103 22006 1382 396 361 10 70 156 48 32 819 741 247 RDULT(U)EDUCRTIDN EDUCRTIDN(U)RDULT EDUCRTIDNCDNTINUING RECURRENT(U)EDUCRTIUN CDHTINUINGEDUCRTIDN EXTERNRLDEGREE CREDIT<1U)EX8MINHTIDN . CREDIT(1U)PRIDR(U)LERPINING CREDIT<1U>EXPERIENCE UNIVERSITY(IU)URLLS CDNTRRCT(U)LERRHING ‘HDNESTUDY HUME(U)STUDY CDRRESPDNDENCE(U)CDURSE CORRESPONDENCE(U)EDUCRTIDN fiDULTL1TEPHCY TELEVIZED(U)LEHRNING EDUCRTIDNLIFESPRN TELEVISEDLERRNING HDULT(U)STUDENT? EDUCRTIDN?(U)BRDKER? PRRT(U)TIHE(U)STUDENT? EXTENSIDN(U)CDURSE EXTENSIDN(U)PRDGRRM GED HIGH(U)SCHDDL(U)EQUIV? CRREER(U>DEVELOPMENTEDUCHTIDN NDNTRRDITIDNRL(U)STUDENT? PROFESSIDNHL(U)TRRINING DN<1U)JDB INSERVICE IN(U)HDUSE INHDUSE IN(U)SERVICE' PRUGRRM? TRHINXNG EDUCHTIDN PROGRRN? + TRRINING + EDUCRTIDN' EDUCRTIDN JDBTRRINING CHREER(U)TRBIN1NG CRREEREDVELUPNENT CRREEREDUCRTIDN CRREERDEVELDPMENT - CCBI, COUNSEL? GUIDRNCE CC‘I 0 (COUNSEL? + GUIDRNCE) EDUCRTIDN?(U)INFDRHRTIDN(U)CENTER BLTERNRTIVEEDUCRTIDN RLTERNRTE(U)EDUCRTIDN NDNTRRDITIDNRL(U)EDUCRTIDN DPEN(U)EDUCRTIDN DPENLERRNING LERRNING(U)RESDURCE(U)CENTEP EDUCHTIDN(U)CDMMUN1TY CD"MUNITY(U)EDUCRTIDH COMMUNITY(U)CDLLEGE/RN9RT 88: 1640 324 2226 2 20 60? 144 297 825 4629 31621 1280 35056 2750 5156 34306 5156 15 1385 0 672 193? 627 735 4262 565 584 462 1319 3938 1148 901 236? 0 0 734 759 977 18289 18274 701 1 701 .-t l scc=1.14 + autLoxNG? n? + REPAIR? 1855 4929 4299 2568 361 SERIRLa 164 HDULT? REED SENIDRcw)CITIZEH? wDMEN CRREER(0>CHRHGE NID(U)CRREER 1-29/+ (30+31+32+33+34)035 43-49/+ (50+51)-52 53-58/+ 36-48/+ 63064 59-65/+ 59+60+61+62+65 FDRD<0>FDUNDRTIDN/FH FS=NY FDRDHELLDN/FN KELLDGG/FN CLHRLES(F)MDTT/FN ~ CRRNEGIE(U>CDRPDRRTIDN/FN LILLY/FN EDNRCLRRKxFN ‘BUSH(U)FDUNDRTIDN/FN FS=HN BUSH(U)FDUNDRTIDN/FN 0 FS=MN YDRK(U)CDNNUNITY(M)TRUST/PH CHICHGD(M>CDMMUNITY/FN CLEVELHND/FN FS=DH CLEVELHND/FN O FS=DH SHN(U)FRRNCISCU/FN RDCKEFELLER(M)FDUNDRTIUHHFN 8L?(1U)SLDRN/FN UlLLIRN(U)PENN/FN RLFRED(F)SLDHN/FN . PENNUILLIRM/FN fiNDREUMELLUH/FN 68*85/+ 86-69 8?06? 306V/88 + snuzp? + RENDVRT? + RECUNSTRUCT? + CDNSTRUCT? + REBUIL CC=1.14 BUILDING? EQUIP? RENUVHT? RECUNSTRUCT? CDNSTRUCT? REBUILD? REPHIR? 2 10600 CC=1.14 + BUILDING? + EQUIP? + RENDVRT? + RECUHSTRUCT? + (OH: TRUCT? + REBUILD? + REPHIR? ? scunsSRoon? + Rnoarruan+ EXPANSIDNT/DE + cc=5.253scc=?.? + cc=?.3 + c c=1.2 + cc=?.5 + cc=1.5 + cc-2.3 + cc=4 + np=r 302 CLRSSRDDM? 284 fiDDITIDN 527 EXPRNSIDN?/DE 2703 C085.25 3 3757 CLRSSRDDH? + RDDITIDN + EXPRNSIDN7/DE + CC=5.25 165 /3‘/8 (6:27 5183 CC=?.3 441? CC=1.2 1843 CC=7.S 347 CC=I.5 2092 CC§2.3 6584 CC=4 3690 DF=F 4 21906 CC=7.7 + CC=7.3 + CC=1.2 + CC=7.5 + CC=1.5 + CC=2.3 + CC=4 + DF=F , ? scuth? + soooRH++HaNotcnpREn + vocnrtoNRL + JUVENILE + ADOLESCENT? + stRs? + any? + MHTERIBL? 6896 CHILD? 7079 YOUTH 2291 HRNDICRPPED 869 VDCRTIDNHL 347 JUVENILE 315 RDULESCENT?‘ 0 SIRS? 2183 BUY? 730 NRTERIHL? 5 17006 CHILD? + YOUTH + HRNDICRPPED + VDCRTIUNHL + JUVENILE + RDDLES CENT? + SIRS? + BUY? + NRTERIRL? ? ssxRL? + (srunsnr? - nouursruneur?> 1038 GIRL? 5065 STUDENT? 7 HDULTSTUDENT? ~ 6 6081 GIRL? + (STUDENT? - HDULT(U)STUDENT?) ? c1-(2+3+4+5+6) 7 424 1-(2+3+4+5+6) APPENDI X B INDECKSC CODE CARDS AND SAMPLE FGI GRANTS APPENDIX B INDECKSC CODE CARDS AND SAMPLE FGI GRANTS we code cord #1-52 PMWW ho No No 7, 1 ,1 Continuing Education 14 ‘ operating ¢08t§ -... 40, minorities..- , 2 Training. all types 1?“ .Partial C°n§i.sduce . fingernail...w _.11 - _ ‘3 Community Education , , W p - Es:w___mm__ j .42“ elderljww ____,_7 - 4 :Educ-Pesource Centenf 29. 1-9231,.-. _: .43.... handicapped- 1.... , 5 ,Externalupegree Prgm. 3Q, ~1:917fi__‘___ g £le pther ‘ 6 Nontraditional Educ. 31_ _}?_7_5_5____ __ __ g____ _ 7 Counseling 8. _Guidanc 32.. 19.7.9”-.___._W M.-- __ 8 “___, _,_-_m _ ,_ 33g 1917...__l_.._.____-__.1-- ”48 M ,over $250,000 M 7 9‘ Conferences, workshop 34 _19_7_§3_ ”__y , __, 7 , _ "__j 49 ( 100,001:250,0007 __10 Degree Programs A _ i : . 1-1- . - 50 -50.001-100.000 _11 Non-Degree programs 36 1 year _. 51, 10.001-50.000 12 Program development, 37 ‘2 yearsww 1 ,___,__-___,_ 5,2”, 10,000 _&,_belovr , -°rtpla’!§‘i"9. ., 38. 3 Years“ 1 1.1,--. i-.. _ ._ 13 Research _ s. Evaluati 39 4 or more years . _. “Wm-.- _____ __.-- __ A I _ 2 - T- ‘ _ I V "H- 2 l—- ‘5“. _ ""' I "““ '7’“ fl " _ M“. Arlm.“..lfls . No 2 We '” code cord .R§§:|.n' ism-5.11mi 20mm _L—p" No No I] No _ 56 public higher Veduc.) '91 Carnegie____ fl“- ---___--. “-11.... _____ 1.. _57 privatemhigher educ. 92 Chicago Conununitwarr t,,,,.__l-_ __ ~ _58 comunitycollege _ , 93“ Clark ,y y -1-..” _ _ -y _ p _ -59 sdhool_§ystemll_-l._ 94 Cleveland.90mmi.T§n§ 1.1. 11 _,.- ll 60 educational _organiz. 95 Ford Foundationw____ ___, _“ .____-_._._ - g -51 non-educational .. __ 96 W.K. Kelloggufllulfl __l. __,_-m__--.._-_..-. m. organization .1 97 fl Lilly Endowment”, ---- __..._-.___,.-.--__.----- __62 State Bd, of, Education 98_ 4 Am. Mellgonflmm -1 W.-._fl________ , __ _ 63 other _ -... _ My _99 ms. Mott Foundation, ”My“ "I..." __ 4 ___,_._,_._1___ - 100 N.Y. Community Trust _.___1_._,,,__.,.__,._ _ _ -- y _y_ , _ , 101 ,William Penn Found. .. ___ ‘ ”__ 1.. _ , __,,___,uw~_ _ _,__ 102.JBockefellermfoundati _fl__.___w_~”,__,, I ___.__,_, fl _ , , 103 San_Francisco _F‘oundat n_, ___ ,__ . , 1.. - 104 Sarah Scaife Foundati t.-- _.._. __M_,___ _ - _ 1,052 lb?» Slearzl’qundatio We“. Art-I’LVLJIS 166 167 um uu uu uw mu u. on no mu 0. no we V. 11;! NN an up Nu um VV Nu V6 00 a. ON am 0‘ on no Du no no no In” V e N . V e w _ u a N _ V a N . q A m _ V e N ‘ q A N _ q A N _ fi 1 a o v a a nil—llllLlll'l. : w v 4 2 zone 7553mm: m3. 502:“; 105235 3 o s a 5 z m A n 4 .i. I! I A I 1 m. a n 7 n a u 4 n a m 2 u 4 I n u A u 9 fl 7 a{l.v. Ii. . II- i II. 11 1.1.: ii iii 1 N H n I w I s 2 00:2.» ufl 4 hillllil‘ulll _uluom .oc.xmoomunm_cnom\co_“Eocene 69:03 0:30» Amoco: >3. .. M a 4 mw~uzuo< .3225 "on 3.53.; "oz 2.5 "u n 1 u 7 1IIII.II.I.II|..| 42 Ska “uucaom .04 L ocae eucaom ecu to cocoa ecu >9 oemmetdxo motto I a .. [95 lliiux 59.595 :0 $522.8: 0» uoeanam .mucegmmc 3.0 «75> :62 “.0 m m 2 2 moeec.ecu oc_>Lem 9.5.595 co nemaooe are 3:95 >Leco:e._om.u | o 4 5 § 1| .30 COZeUCJOe 3235600 m.>:u v20> 3ez m< “20:55... .4 w H .4. 4 2K5 Secs—5:00 ass—meomuzfcmam m u o :Il-|«tl|-ll “.3 5959:. .853. >333: cmocmaxe use .0559; no. .. s 4 7 wee—u >oce_w>_:ae _oozom 20.: .EegooLa cm._ocm _nco.uomne>cou m u .. ; i: ii; to“. .>z c>_xoo..m 53:00.5 to <03» ou oou.nwn m l 3 >2 .umanp >u_c:§=ou «to» 302 .. m a 2 .- Sn. .3 . .. w 4 N A m M u 7 z a . a 1 _ ul A u u m — N V b _ N V b — N V b — N V n — N V F F N V b . N V h _ N V b o . I i .I. ‘ ‘ - ‘ ‘ ' 1| 1. 4! an 9n an wn p» on on QN um um mu VN nu NM —N fiou u— n— h— c— v. V— n. N. e. o— a o h w n V n \NN l« :1 ‘ ' - ' ' ‘ ‘ r' ‘4 Wmmfiuuuwmeo.mnounhmuomaumnmouo.:MNMUV.VUMONVVOVG¢OC—DNGUOhuucooanaog 168 4 .. ~ _ u S N _ u S .w l q A ~ _ u . N _ u S N _ q S w _ q A N _ M .. a o u a .. . . e m 4 2 XUHD IuK .ZOP02_JK< g 9 6 7.. s m n 4 47.! ii} (:71 $1511. a {l a? 17 t-,.:-.é . 137 , . 7 u u 7 n ‘ 6 5 ul 5 M 2 A u 4: m u 7 , - 7: , II: -. I C, 7 7 7} Iii; ii -I.Ii:5 1, I . 7 7 3 u .I 6 A 1 I: 4 1| . 7 6 a 2 m m k .. a 4 7 m 1 u 7 ill ogeu zine: 320.55: 1 m n a “caseoecflizoznuaue aceEoomceE .etnu cine: "memo: >wz .. u 4 1 _Lliziill 825208 8m 530253 a 3238 no: 26. "o m w u 2 t C)? Logo”... m 4 .. j 67!!!! i : Louuoio 509.075 .3 atone: «wuzuzwemz .o. m 4 4 v "29:56 .me» .. a o 7 iii)!l.n1\ chin}: .uceEeouceE .3053: 0.50 nine; 5 coZeUaoe m s 4 0:252:00 one .euoacogoLeuca 9.059: 0.536: 3.5300 n. w .. 11? ii; I oo_e>mo o» .3 #52052 53:03.3 .0 35.53:: on womNemn m .. u 2 .2 £33933 7%»: 32.3. m m .-,ll|||. 8.53. 1 u 4 V. A w M u 7 s a . o _u v A o H m p N V h — N V n — N V b — N V s — N V b — N V b — N V F — N V 0 /mncnnn 38$mazeuflfinuaruouflft23:23:2annonvnu 169 m .3 u... no mo 0. on on on mm mm 3 ac me no V. VN 7; .: Vu Va Vu an we no a. a» on we an an NV nu so no 7‘ e u _ V a 7r. _ 7‘ o u _ 7‘ e N _ u e w . 7‘ A N _ q a N . q a N _ fl = o u a a u . c L m V 5: Emilee: 32 50:5; .zowozjm.‘ (A. v u 8 m a 7 :77 70-737 7 Z N 3 a 7 n o m 7. u w w n. 7:71-77l7l7 m a a 7. 77 r 7 77 . 7 7 7 7 7.17 7777 7 7 7 7.77 77 711 u H ~41 _ L “ I 4 7 m m A. l7lz7711i m 7 44 1|.» 7! 3:63 53833 "memo: E: m n a 20:559. Sno< "um 20:553. 0: c; "u 1 4 .77 77 77 7-, 42 23.3 “3.58 m m u ate $3.853 e u .7. iizi717l|l777iu _ec03moaoe so on: 0cm .cozuatumc. Eon—Zuc— .euce.ceoxo v u _uCOZMUJUe monsoonto 5:3"; toe 05950. 0.7.0.0:— mmecum m m o .77‘1777|.»77|l .23 “9: 59304:. cozeozoo ceno eogeuoum e0 .ceEQo_e>mu can .0. s 4 oc_::o.a col ._: .:_:_0cor .__u3mz e0 >o_mto>_c: ou ooo.om_n 9 n 7 7777 :77 >2 .coZmficnoe Eon. m l 5 0.03m— .. n 3 Ill 0 I .I 4 a A n. m 4 u .. e . o _v u a a u m . N V n _ N V N — N v b . N V x. p N V b — N V b — N V b _ N V 0 mm «M mm Nn .n on NW eN ~N an nN VN MN NN _N ON we n— h. w; n. V' n. : o— a 8 Al) r. V n N 7 7 7 7 l 75! ‘ii. "I \‘l! III»! \l‘L APPENDIX C THE CLEVELAND FOUNDATION APPENDIX C THE CLEVELAND FOUNDATION TABLE I Analysis of Postsecondary Education Grants 1971—73 and 1974—78 1971—73 1974—78 Total Awards % Awards Total Awards % Awards $3,423,787 100 $5,919,321 100 Total Awards $9,343,108 1971—78 TABLE II Analysis of Postsecondary Education Grants: Total Awards- 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 1974 1,412,276 Total Cell % 23.8 1975 750,224 Total Cell % 1976 1,051,036 Total Cell % 17.74 1977 2,040,814 Total Cell % 34.45 1978 688,951 Total Cell % 11'29 TOTAL 5,923,321 CELL % 100 170