Philadelphia Foundations and the Relationship Between Capital and Social Movements

First things first. Some definitions.

What is ‘capital?’

David Harvey, who teaches at the City University of New York, says that capital is value in motion. One example of capital is money that is invested for the purpose of turning a profit. Other examples are investments in a building or land or other real estate, or in machines in a factory, or in stocks, bonds, and commodity futures. These are all examples of capital. Money becomes capital when it is put into action in order to grow.  Money hidden under a mattress is not capital and neither is buried gold coins. Money taken from under a mattress is capital if it is paid to an employee or invested in the stock market. When we say capital we also sometimes mean the people who control capital, as in the title of this post. Charitable organizations like the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the Pew Charitable Trusts control a lot of capital, which they use to fund programs, social services, education, and sometimes, the work of social movements.

What is a social movement?

Cornell University sociologist Sidney Tarrow defines a social movement as “collective challenges [to elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes] by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities.” Thanks, Wikipedia!

A more plain way of saying this is that a social movement is a group of people who have come together to demand that the authorities make some changes in the world, or who attempt to make those changes by themselves. The nuclear disarmament campaigns of the 1980s were carried out by a social movement. Anti-abortion groups like Operation Rescue are also part of a social movement, just one of a different type.

What is cooptation? What does it mean to ‘manage’ social change?

The demands of social movements can represent a threat to the power of local and national elites. Simply ignoring or repressing the demands of social movements can also be dangerous, to the extent that the movement might represent real and widely-held popular dissatisfaction. Political opponents from other factions of the elite might support popular discontent to further their own agenda, or the people’s anger might fester and eventually irrupt without warning. To diffuse these two dangers, local and national elites often choose to manage the threat of social movement activism by cooptation. One means of co-opting a movement is to buy off its leadership, or else to selectively incorporate some of the leadership into positions of relative power. Another way is to carefully adopt some of the demands of a movement as the elites’ own. By doing so, elite managers of social movements can choose which changes they are willing to accept, and can set elements of the social movement against one another in order to prevent changes that are viewed as too risky, or too extreme.

What is your point here?

We are proposing that one of the things that charitable foundations that fund social justice causes do is to manage social change through managing social movements demands, incorporating elements of their leadership into the foundation structure, and by selectively supporting those pieces of social movements work that they feel they are most sympathetic to.

But don’t believe us. William Domhoff wrote an essay in 2005 about the role of the Ford Foundation in managing change in U.S. cities in the 1960s and ’70s. It’s in the May 2012 archives if you’re interested.

The William Penn Foundation and Philadelphia Journalism

http://www.citypaper.net/cover_story/2012-07-05-money-talks.html?page=2&c=y

Nowak, according to sources, has a deep skepticism of government — somewhat understandable in a city and state whose lawmakers are regularly sent off to prison for corruption and where citizens suffer daily abuses of a groaning and increasingly defunded bureaucracy. And as government spending dwindles, foundations like William Penn are asked to make up the shortfall. But the dependence on foundation dollars raises difficult questions about the implications of unelected entities funding and setting priorities for core democratic institutions like education — and, crucially, for the reporters charged with holding the powerful accountable. William Penn, as most reporters but few citizens know, already funds most corners of Philly journalism.

“It’s a brave new world for journalism,” says Inquirer architecture and planning critic Inga Saffron. “It’s great that these organizations are generous, but at the same time we have to be alert to their agenda.”

David Haas, still on the William Penn board but no longer its chair, has a particular enthusiasm for journalism. Pre-Nowak, William Penn spent $2.4 million to create the Philadelphia Public Interest Information Network at Temple University, a still-in-development project that has elicited both excitement and confusion among local reporters.

Nowak, for his part, says that he puts an emphasis on game-changing investigative reporting.

Along with funding a new plan for the Delaware River waterfront, the foundation has heavily funded PlanPhilly, a journalism outfit that covered that plan, and other development and public-space issues. And it has funded — and will now defund — It’s Our Money, a joint project by WHYY and the Daily News focusing on government matters.

WHYY, which has received $1.24 million from William Penn since 2006, is an object lesson on how donors can appear to influence journalism. The Scattergood Foundation funds a beat at WHYY covering behavioral health. Three of 11 total reporters are dedicated to health and sciences, more than to state or local government; and WHYY’s Health and Science Advisory Committee includes many donors and underwriters.

Yet aside from a few shining examples — the multi-station collaboration StateImpact covering natural-gas drilling and the soon-to-be-cut It’s Our Money — WHYY does not pursue much in the way of investigative journalism. Nowak says he’s told WHYY brass that “we, meaning the foundation, like and care about deep, high-quality content.” So it’s possible that William Penn could drive WHYY to dedicate more staffers to investigative reporting.

But foundations, from William Penn in Philly to Gates on the national level, are themselves subject to little critical media coverage. A study by the conservative American Enterprise Institute, found “13 positive articles” on education-funding foundations “for every critical account.”

And Nowak’s commitment to investigative journalism has been tested when it comes to continuing support for theNotebook. At times, Nowak has criticized the paper. “I have pushed them on what I think sometimes is a lack of, you know, that they need to give multiple sides,” he says. But he insists he is not looking to shut down a critical outlet. “They’ve been something that the foundation has supported, something that the foundation is proud of. … You don’t have to agree with everything somebody does.”

Indeed, Nowak gave a long and candid interview with the education-reporting outfit the Notebook on the BostonConsulting funding and has “advocated for the Notebook with other funders,” including major national grant-makers.

The advertising revenue that was long the lifeblood of newspapers has evaporated, and government funding for core public goods like education has suffered for decades. Foundations like William Penn, to the relief of many, are stepping into this void. But Jeremy Nowak, like many Philadelphians, has an agenda — and unlike most Philadelphians, he has an enormous sum of money at his disposal with which to pursue it.

Dan Denvir of the Philadelphia City Paper has got it surrounded.

Money Talks

And when Jeremy Nowak is paying, Philly schools have to listen.

Daniel Denvir

City Paper

In mid-May, Jeremy Nowak joined School Reform Commission chairman Pedro Ramos and pro-charter-school activists at a long meeting to discuss a big problem: They were losing the media war to opponents of the plan, released three weeks earlier, to dismantle the Philadelphia School District and potentially put public schools under private management. Nowak, who took over as chief executive of the William Penn Foundation in June 2011, was very much invested in the plan’s success. The foundation had given $1.45 million directly — and helped obtain at least $1.2 million more — to pay the Boston Consulting Group to develop a so-called “Blueprint” for restructuring the troubled district.

But while the SRC, Republican Gov. Tom Corbett and Boston Consulting were all targets of protesters’ ire, Nowak’s role was discussed by just a few. And then only in whispers.

“I think he’s taking an activist approach to being president of the foundation, and he has an agenda,” says one observer of city schools who, like many interviewed for this story, spoke only on condition of anonymity. “It is a shadow school district that’s being bankrolled by people who don’t even live in the city.”

Conversations with sources, along with documents obtained by City Paper, portray an expanding network of pro-charter-school organizations close to, and in many cases funded by, William Penn, coordinating with the state-controlled School District to map out the future of Philly public education. It is now clear that Nowak, a major charter-school supporter and longtime force in Philadelphia, had taken the city’s most powerful foundation in an aggressively political direction.

http://www.citypaper.net/cover_story/2012-07-05-money-talks.html

Ruminations on the Larger Picture

Can we think about a political field of play where conflicts are, at this point, largely acted out at the level of disagreements between different sectors and different magnitudes of capital? That is, can philanthropic foundations be part of the peaceful struggle between different managers and owners of capital who disagree about the best course of action for the economy or for society? For example, major players may differ as to whether the national economy ought to be run on the basis of a nominally free-market system (which of course is not as free as they might think for reasons we should get into), or whether there should be a stronger role for the state in terms of managing social reproduction (transport, education, health care, culture and arts, environmental protection). ?

David Harvey gives us a historical example of this in the form of the Nineteenth century Corn Laws of Britain.  Industrial employers wanted cheap bread in order to keep the price of wages for workers down by making it less expensive to reproduce a worker. Land owners wanted to keep the price of wheat high to maximize their own income from agriculture. The disagreement between land owners and factory owners was fought out on the field of Parliamentary legislation around import taxation. The factory owners won, and cheap food meant that workers could work for less, making British goods more competitive, and British firms more profitable.

There have been rather sharp conflicts between different sectors of capital over the course of the history of the industrialized countries. Industrial capital overthrew landed capital and financial capital subsequently laid industrial capital low. In the UK, the city of London thrives while Manchester and Liverpool rot. In the USA, New York rises from the ashes of the 1970s while Detroit is thrown back into those ashes time and again.

Right now, we need to be able to see what are the conflicts within capital, and how different sectors of capital might happily co-opt the struggles of the 99% for the purpose of not just defusing popular discontent, but also of enlisting their potential enemies into a role as junior partner in an alliance against their opponent capitals.

Here’s an example. The labor movement’s leadership (both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win) are yoked to the Democratic party. The unions provide people and money for election campaigns in return for a seat at the table. The Right has been pointing this out for years, and is one of the big reasons why the Republican party is so maniacally anti-labor. They view it as simply a political fight. Progressives are also well aware of this, but they make the mistake of thinking that because organized labor and the social movement organizations are with the Democrats and against the Republicans that the Democrats are somehow for labor and social justice instead of being a catch-all party in the service of and under the direction of certain sectors of capital.

We need to get clearer on what those sectors of capital are, what their specificities are, what the relationships between capital and movements that work against the bad effects of capital are, and how the different actors and aspects of capital fight on another even as they keep us down. And we need to know how this matters when we fight for the independence of our movements from capital, the parties, the tame unions, and the gatekeeper non-profits.

Accumulation

The logic of capital is determined by the absolute necessity of accumulation. As the rate of return on one sector of the economy becomes stagnant, capital is forced to seek out new areas of investment that will yield a higher return. The relative decline of manufacture in Philadelphia and its partial replacement by healthcare, education, hi-tech, services, but above all and especially finance and financial services can be viewed as an effect of investors seeking out that higher rate of return. Combined with the rationalization of manufacture that makes the same work possible with fewer workers. Disinvestment in Philadelphia’s people, institutions, and infrastructure is due to that shift of focus of capital and that rationalization. Instead of money for schools and employment there is money for managing the poor through policing, imprisonment, and social services.

The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Power Elite

The Board of Directors of the Pew Charitable Trusts
(Research services provided by the good people at littlesis.org)

  • John Morton (Managing Director)
    • Director of the National Security Network. See Below.
  • Robert H. Campbell
    • Director since 1992, Cigna employee benefits company
    • Past Director, Hershey
    • Member of Board of Directors, Vical Incorporated (vaccines)
    • CEO from 1991-200, Sunoco, Inc.
  • Sandy Ford Pew
  • Susan W. Catherwood
    • Board of Directors, Glenmede Investment and Wealth Management
    • Board member, University of Pennsylvania
  • Rebecca W. Rimel  (now CEO and Executive Director)
    • Board member, DWS Funds (part of Deutche Asset Management)
  • Gloria Twine Chisum
    • Trustee, University of Pennsylvania
  • Robert G. Williams  (seems to be a rare Republican based on his donations)
    • Chairman of the Board of Directors, Glenmede Investment and Wealth Management
    • Markel, (insurance company) past chairman
    • Girard Bank, retired Vice Chairman
  • Aristides W. Georgantas
    • Board of Directors, Glenmede Investment and Wealth Management
    • Past Executive Vice President of Chase Manhattan Bank
    • Past Chairman and CEO of Chemical Bank of New Jersey
  • Ethel Benson Wister
    • Board of Directors, Glenmede Investment and Wealth Management
  • J. Howard Pew II
    • Board of Directors, Glenmede Investment and Wealth Management
  • J.N. Pew IV, M.D.
    • Board of Directors, Glenmede Investment and Wealth Management
  • R. Anderson Pew
    • Board of Directors, Glenmede Investment and Wealth Management
  • Mary Catharine Pew, M.D.

Legacy Director  (?)

  • Arthur E. Pew III

Project Director, Financial Reforms at Pew

  • Charles Taylor
    • Accenture plc (Bermuda holding company) past associate partner
    • Past Executive Director of the Group of Thirty (see below.)

 The Pew network appears to be relatively compact.

Board members of the Pew Charitable Trusts are heavily represented on the boards of the Glenmede Trust, and there is also some interlock with the University of Pennsylvania, Sunoco, Inc., Cigna, Hershey, Markel, The Group of Thirty, The National Security Network, Chase Manhattan Bank, Accenture plc, DWS Funds, and the Chemical Bank of New Jersey.

National Security Network

Pew board members also overlap with lots and lots of national security policy people. Members of The Council on Foreign Relations, the National Security Council, Stonebridge International, Center for New American Security, New America Foundation, the National Security Agency, The National Security Agency Review Team, JP Morgan Chase, American International Group Incorporated,  Lehman Brothers Holding inc.,. The overlapping people include Richard  Holbrooke, Sandy Berger, Wesley Clark,

The Group of Thirty

Influential group of financiers and economists whose board includes Paul Volcker, Tim Geithner,  Larry Summers, Paul Krugman, and others. The Group of Thirty overlaps with everyone in government, economics, banking, Wall Street, Harvard, the Federal Reserve, the Council of Economic Advisors, and the International Monetary Fund. Lots and lots of power interlock.

Donors to Pew Charitable Trusts

The Robertson Foundation (Hedge fund manager Julian Robertson)

Meyer Memorial Trust

Some Recipients of Pew Charitable Trusts funds

National Public Radio

Brookings Institution

Retirement Security Project

New America Foundation

Urban Institute

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education

Americans Discuss Social Security (org in the 1990s)

Economic Policy Institute

Glenmede Investment and Wealth Management

(quoted from their website unless otherwise noted)

“The Glenmede Trust Company was founded in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1956 by four children of Joseph N. Pew, founder of Sun Oil Company, to serve as the corporate trustee for the trust they had endowed to honor their parents. The Pew Memorial Trust, as it came to be known, funded with Sun Oil Co. stock, made donations to support charitable organizations that shared the family’s beliefs and philosophies in the fields of education, medicine, religion and social welfare.

During the 1970s, diversification of The Pew Trusts’ concentrated stock holdings became a priority. With that diversification came sophisticated investment strategies to preserve principal, achieve capital appreciation, and generate income to meet distribution requirements. This was a significant turning point in the Company’s history. Although Glenmede was entrusted with outside assignments as early as 1960, it was not until 1978 that a formal service offering for families, foundations, and endowments was created. Over time, a comprehensive range of wealth advisory services was built to complement the core service of investment management and trust administration.

By the close of the 1990s, Glenmede had expanded its presence outside of Philadelphia to include offices in Princeton and Morristown, New Jersey, Wilmington, Delaware, and Cleveland, Ohio. Today, Glenmede is a national trust company, chartered under the National Bank Act and supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, serving more than 1,700 clients located throughout the country. In 2009, Glenmede announced the opening of a New York office to enhance our existing footprint within that market.

Having managed its own proprietary equity and fixed income strategies for more than 25 years, Glenmede’s SEC-registered investment advisor, Glenmede Investment Management (“GIM”), provides access to those strategies for the institutional marketplace. GIM has $5 billion of institutional assets under management for Glenmede’s proprietary family of mutual funds and also serves corporations, public plans, foundations, endowments, and not-for-profit clients.

 

The Strength of Independence:

 

The financial services industry is characterized by a long history of ongoing consolidation and reorganization, notwithstanding the unprecedented turbulence of 2008. The unfortunate result of this is the loss of personal relationships between clients and the firms that serve them. Glenmede has quietly followed its own course and remained fiercely committed to independence. On its own, Glenmede possesses the scale and resources to attract accomplished professionals and offer a wide range of wealth advisory services and investment strategies. We steadfastly believe that all stakeholders – our clients, employees, and shareholders – are best served by our continued independence, stability, and a culture in which client interests take precedence. Glenmede has evolved since its founding, but its values as a company have remained consistent – our goal and daily task is to ensure that these same values continue to define Glenmede for the future.”[1]

 

Glenmede Investment Management

Website claims that GIM manages “over $20 billion” for “over 1,700 clients”[2]

“Glenmede Investment Management is a privately owned, independent investment management firm which provides alpha generating investment strategies in the following asset categories:

  • US Equities – Large, Mid, Smid, and Small Cap Equities
  • Extensions – 130/30 and Long Short
  • US Fixed Income – Core, Intermediate and Short Duration Fixed Income

Glenmede has successfully managed institutional assets for over fifty years. We have expanded our capabilities to cover a wide range of asset classes combined with sophisticated analytics and research.

Glenmede Investment Management (GIM) is a registered investment advisor regulated by the SEC. With nearly $5 billion of institutional assets under management, GIM is advisor to Glenmede’s proprietary family of mutual funds and serves corporations, public plans, foundation & endowments, Taft-Hartley plans and not-for-profit clients.”[3]

 

Endowments and Foundations

 “Glenmede provides a full range of sophisticated investment management and advisory services to endowments and foundations. We gain a clear understanding of the organization’s goals and objectives. Then we construct a balanced, multi-asset investment portfolio that incorporates the investment strategies practiced by the most forward-thinking endowments and foundations. Some of our clients choose to work with us as an outsourced CIO while others tap into our broad range of supplemental offerings such as trustee, grants management, tax, planned giving and foundation management services.”[4]

Personal Banker to the %1?

 “Glenmede is ideally suited to serve families and tax-exemptorganizations with $5 million or more of investable assets. … Glenmede has consistently been recognized by the Luxury Brand Institute’s private banking survey as one of the top three providersof quality service to high net worth individuals.”[5]

A private firm that keeps a low profile.

“Glenmede Trust is a private bank that doesn’t want to be a household name. And it’s happy being small, too. If Gordon Fowler has his way, Glenmede Trust will become the greatest wealth-management company the world- other than its clients has never heard of”

“We’re never going to be a household word on Wall Street or Main Street, and that is just fine,” says Fowler, who serves as both CEO and chief investment officer of the Philadelphia-based investment firm.

Private banks—especially those that started by catering to generations of a single family, as Glenmede did—may have a reputation for being conservative and slightly stuffy.

To Fowler, that image doesn’t matter a bit, as long as Glenmede is in the vanguard when it comes to delivering new ideas and products to its customers, most of whom have accounts of at least $3 million.

For Glenmede, being a contrarian is good, whether that means making a foray into overseas markets in the 1980s, a decade before that became de rigeur, or investing in private equity in the early 1990s, long before most investors discovered it. The private-equity experience paid off nicely, helping the firm snap up partnership interests on the secondary market at distressed prices immediately after the 2008 financial crisis.

“We had the skills to understand private equity, the different managers to put a value on those assets,” Fowler says, adding that the knowledge and willingness to go against the crowd at a time of stress translated into significant returns for Glenmede’s clients.

Despite the rocky market, Glenmede’s assets under management have climbed to about $18 billion, up from $16 billion at the end of 2008 and $14 billion at the end of 2003. Although its offices are concentrated on the Eastern seaboard and in Ohio, it has clients in all 50 states.

Glenmede was founded in 1956 by four of the children of Joseph N. Pew, founder of Sun Oil, to manage the assets in the charitable trust they had set up in memory of their parents. It wasn’t until the late 1970s that the firm branched out from its core business of investing and administering the assets of the Pew Charitable Trusts and actively sought mandates from other families and endowments and began offering a broader array of wealth-management services. Today, the Pew Charitable Trusts account for less than a quarter of the firm’s assets.

Fowler and his team develop contrarian ideas from what he describes as a “Bell Labs-style” investment process. “We aren’t on the bleeding edge of innovation, but the thoughtful edge,” he says.

While Glenmede’s investment team, which Fowler oversees, tries to identify opportunities that are overlooked or ignored by others, the goal is to emphasize those that have the potential to deliver long-term rewards for clients. “We see it as our job to separate the wheat from the chaff, to focus on the good, enduring ideas and strategies that will last for generations.”

That means being opportunistic as well as contrarian. Glenmede steered its clients into high-yield bonds in early 2009, anticipating a recovery in the credit markets, and helped them profit from the normalization of bond prices that followed. Now Fowler and his team are looking for ways to diversify clients’ assets, taking advantage of other markets where there is a gap between perception and what Glenmede’s analysts believe to be reality.

“We don’t really like the euro, but we do find some bargains in European stocks,” Fowler says. Glenmede investment managers also are scoping out the options market, where implied volatility levels remain at high levels—which could mean outsized returns.

THE NATURE OF GLENMEDE’S BUSINESS ensures the firm is on the radar screen of most of Wall Street’s inventive minds.

“As the manager of more than $5 billion in endowment funds, we are constantly being shown new investment opportunities that are out there,” says Fowler. “Our size doesn’t prevent us from doing anything; we have the scale to offer a wide range of services, but we are still small enough to be able to know and serve each client as an individual, not an account number. Clients know they can call me directly. I answer my own phone.”

The firm’s origins, Fowler says, affect not only the makeup of its business (working with both endowments and wealthy families) but also the way it manages wealth and the kind of clients Glenmede attracts. About half of the clients, he says, are ultra-high-net-worth families looking for someone to advise them on multigenerational issues, ranging from philanthropy to tax-efficient transfers of wealth.

Most of those clients entrust between $10 million and $15 million to the firm, and pay a fee that typically starts at 1% of assets annually. That figure can rise, depending on the degree of complexity associated with the products and services the client needs, or shrink if the client has a particularly large pool of assets at Glenmede and more straightforward needs. In exchange, Glenmede’s bankers are asked not just to deliver creative investment ideas, but also to troubleshoot other problems that plague the ultra-rich.

In one case, Fowler recalls, a client sought Glenmede’s help after selling his company for a significant sum. “The news was in the papers, and all of a sudden the individual was responding to several requests for assistance by family members,” says Fowler. Glenmede’s solution was to create a family philanthropic bank: “Direct relatives can apply for a loan or grant for certain very specific purposes: four years of college tuition, the down payment on their first house, medical expenses for a catastrophic illness or seed money to start a business, either in the shape of a loan or an ownership interest. This way, the client had an orderly process for passing on some of the money as well as a way to communicate the family’s values to other relatives.” The goal—relieving the emotional and financial pressure on their client—was realized, Fowler says.

To clients like that, Glenmede’s roots working with the Pew family and its status as a privately owned financial institution are just as important as its contrarian investment ideas. Fowler prides himself on knowing every one of the firm’s clients, and insists that Glenmede needs to take a cautious approach to expansion.

“We are specialists. We are in one business and one business only, and that is advising our clients on managing their wealth,” he says firmly. “We don’t make loans. We don’t do any investment banking. We act as fiduciaries for our clients.”

Glenmede’s core group of clients come in two distinct groups. The first is made up of business owners who have sold their companies, only to realize they need help in managing the money. “There is an instant connection on their part to the fact that we are a privately owned company, because many of them built up their own companies by themselves. They didn’t make their money working for someone else,” Fowler says. “They are aware that we understand their values.”

THE SECOND GROUP OF CLIENTS includes heirs of wealthy entrepreneurs. Here the challenges are different. Rather than helping a newly wealthy family navigate the initial maze of decisions and choices, Glenmede advisors work to ensure that highly complex families with a web of trusts don’t face bureaucratic headaches or excessive taxes or other costs.

“Every client gets their own administrative officer as well as a portfolio manager, someone to oversee the whole of the relationship,” Fowler explains. In recent years, Glenmede has also been attracting assets from what Fowler refers to as “financial-industry entrepreneurs,” such as hedge-fund managers, who are looking to find a way to preserve some assets in trust outside of their core business. “We become the guardian of their ‘safety assets,’ ” he says.

The one contrarian play that doesn’t appeal to Fowler at the moment is to take advantage of the turmoil in the financial industry to transform Glenmede into a much larger institution. There are certainly intriguing opportunities, whether to add clients at a more rapid pace, acquire new teams of investment managers or other professionals, or even to make strategic acquisitions.

Glenmede hasn’t bypassed those altogether. Fowler says the firm has hired private-banking veterans from other institutions to fill senior roles in the investment arena and to oversee private-equity investments. But, he adds, there is a difference between hiring private bankers to reinforce an existing business and trying to change the nature of the firm.

“We don’t want to grow by leaps and bounds, but on a controlled and moderate basis,” he explains. “Frankly, this business doesn’t scale too well when you try to grow too rapidly. You lose touch with your clients.”

Indeed, if Fowler has his way, Glenmede is likely to remain a low-key firm, a contrarian contrarian. Measured growth should pay off for clients, without increased risk.

Fowler says Glenmede’s clients still will fare best in low-growth or slow-growth markets, as will the firm itself. “There are certainly growth opportunities for us all out there,” he says. “But we’ll be opportunistic. We will wait to see what unfolds.”

On that “thoughtful edge” of innovation, there’s always something to find. ”[6]

Notes on Foundations and the %1: The Pew Charitable Trusts

Let’s start by looking at the Pew Charitable Trusts. All of this is from Wikipedia unless otherwise noted.

Sunoco, formerly Sun Oil Company, and originally Sun Company inc.. The Pew Charitable Trusts were formed by merging seven of the smaller philanthropic foundations under which were managed by the children of the guy who owned the thing.

Joseph Newton Pew (1848-1912) Founder of Sun Oil Company

Joseph N. Pew Jr. and J. Howard Pew took over after father’s death and ran the company. The Pew brothers and their sisters founded the individual Pew Charitable Trusts, which were later merged into the Pew Charitable Trusts, now a single non-profit foundation.

In the early 20th century the Pews were pro-business and politically conservative, and view the New Deal as an attack on business and a threat to individual freedom and initiative.

Joseph N. Pew Jr. was a political king-maker in the Republican party in Pennsylvania, and J. Howard Pew got Sunoco into Canadian oilsand exploration and ecploitation. (See SunCor oilsands plant.) J. Howard also supported Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, where there was a relationship with Billy Graham and Harold Ockenga. Furthermore, J. Howard donated money to the Foundation For American Education, the American Liberty League, and Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential bid. The Pew Charitable Trusts also gave money to the John Birch Society.

A lot has happened happened since then.

  • The separation of the Pew Trusts from Glenmede, the asset management company that used to be its ‘fiduciary’. Glenmede still manages Pew’s money, though, and the Pew Trusts are the single biggest part of Glenmede’s portfolio.
  • The Pew shifted away from a hard-right political position under the directorship of  Thomas Langfitt, President and CEO from 1987 to 1994.
  • Rebecca Rimel, trained as a nurse, has been Executive Director since 1998. Rimel is a supporter of sentencing and corrections reform. She mentions work the Pew has done in Texas in 2007 in an letter she wrote on Philanthropy Daily here: http://www.philanthropydaily.com/?p=8615
  • Glenmede has sold much or all of its Sunoco stock, and has relied more and more on the financial sector for its asset growth.
  • The Pew is now more transparent and professionalized than before, and it is one of, or maybe the, biggest charitable donor in the Philadelphia area. Millions and millions of dollars. Every year.
  • The Pew set up a big think tank in Washington. The Pew Research Center. It is maybe the third biggest in D.C. It does a lot of research and published on immigration, religion and public life, the environment, and civil society issues. Their political perspective is ‘middle of the road,’ or moderate.
  • Members of the Board of directors of the Pew also sit on the board of Glenmede, and are often members of the Pew family.
  • Officers, employees, and board members of Glenmede also sit on the boards of foundations like the Philadelphia Foundation.
  • The Pew was supportive of moving the Barnes to Philadelphia. Why? They want to support the re-investment and re-development of center city.
  • The Pew has publishes in Public Safety Performance, which is a crime and incarceration journal, and they published a report on mass incarceration in the United States called “1 in 31.” They seem like they are in favor of alternative incarceration measures, and drawing down the number of prisoners in PA.

The Ford Foundation in the Inner City: Forging an Alliance with Neighborhood Activists

by G. William Domhoff

September 2005

This is the story of the Ford Foundation’s involvement in the inner city, which began back in 1955 when it financed a program to smooth the way for the expansion of downtowns into low-income neighborhoods through urban renewal. The essay explains how and why this powerful foundation developed what might seem at first glance to be an unlikely alliance with neighborhood activists in the 1960s and 1970s, then put its primary focus on low-income housing in the 1980s. But let’s start at the grassroots level and find our way to the power elite from there.

If you were to go into a low-income, inner-city neighborhood today, whether it was predominantly white or predominantly black, you might see several locally managed nonprofit organizations called Community-Based Organizations, or CBOs. These CBOs provide social services, job training, support for neighborhood groups and new small businesses, and/or advocacy for tenant’s rights. They were founded by activists who originally were part of or inspired by the civil rights, anti-war, and other movements of the 1960s and 1970s. They are further testament to the point that a relatively small handful of committed activists can make a difference (Flacks, 1988).

You also might see units of affordable housing being built or rehabilitated by a type of community-based organization called a Community Development Corporation, or CDC, of which there are now several thousand. Since the early 1990s they have accounted for most of the new or rehabilitated housing in the inner city. They, too, are the product of a long history of activist struggle, mostly against the banking and real estate sectors, which have largely abandoned inner-city neighborhoods (Dreier, 2003).

If you inquired a little further, you would find that most of these organizations are part of national associations or are supported by various kinds of national-level advocacy organizations, usually located in Washington, DC. For example, the CDCs belong to the National Congress for Community Economic Development (NCCED), which is basically their trade association. The NCCED publishes reports meant to impress corporations, foundations, and local elected officials, and it lobbies Congress on housing issues. Most CDCs raise money for their projects through two national-level nonprofit organizations, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation and the Enterprise Foundation, which have regional and local offices, and provide technical advice and training as well as loans.

(You can read the rest of the article here)