DOCSLIB.ORG

Issue: the Business of Philanthropy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Issue: the Business of Philanthropy Issue: The Business of Philanthropy The Business of Philanthropy By: S.L. Mintz Pub. Date: October 26, 2015 Access Date: September 24, 2021 DOI: 10.1177/2374556815616611 Source URL: http://businessresearcher.sagepub.com/sbr-1645-97243-2699002/20151026/the-business-of-philanthropy ©2021 SAGE Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ©2021 SAGE Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Can for-profit strategies work in the nonprofit world? Executive Summary To support their philanthropic missions, U.S. nonprofit groups raise and spend trillions of dollars each year, and employ about 11 million people. They have access to unmatched wealth, dazzling technology and increasingly sophisticated and data-hungry donors. But challenges abound. They include an intense rivalry for dollars, whether fundraising is done face-to-face or by electronic means. In addition, nonprofits have learned that they cannot win or retain support based on the merit of their causes alone—they also must be able to show measurable, transparent results. To meet these challenges, managers increasingly are emphasizing the same bottom-line oriented techniques used by their for-profit counterparts. Among the questions under discussion: Can for-profit management principles and practices fit the philanthropic model? Can data measure good work? Can technology improve fundraising? Overview CARE, the iconic international human relief organization, got its start distributing packages of much-needed food and supplies to European survivors of World War II. Through cultural shifts, policy reversals, local political conflicts and volatile economic climates, CARE has not altered its ambitious philanthropic mission: to serve individuals and families in the poorest communities in the world. 1 CEO Helene Gayle arrived at Atlanta-based CARE in 2006 with a mandate to multiply the impact of the sprawling global organization. “We determined that we needed to share information across countries more than we had done, be more rigorous about measuring our impact and make the best use of our voice as an advocate for policy change,” Gayle told the Harvard Business Review. To improve accountability, CARE not only tracks numbers such as the amount of food it delivers. It also measures how it has improved access to clean water, sanitation, health care, agricultural expertise that targets malnutrition and skills that empower women, all in close cooperation with governments and the private sector. On Gayle's watch, the list of changes included a program to expand access to savings accounts, credit, insurance and other financial services to hundreds of millions of low-income Africans. 2 Gayle left CARE in early 2015 to become the first CEO of the McKinsey Helene Gayle, then-CEO of CARE, reads with children during a Social Initiative. In her new role, she will advise other nonprofits under the visit to a Guatemalan school. Gayle pushed the global aid aegis of New York-based McKinsey & Co., a corporate management 3 organization to use more businesslike metrics to assess the consultant. Her job switch signals a shift in the nonprofit sector, as many effects of its work. (CARE) U.S. nonprofits assess how best to cope with a rapidly changing, crowded philanthropic landscape that increasingly requires business expertise to support do-good missions. Tens of thousands of new public charities open in the United States each year, including those started for churches, schools and charitable aid groups. 4 (Donors to public charities can take tax deductions; the philanthropic sector also includes private foundations, which typically have just one source of funding, such as a wealthy family. 5 There are also nonprofit groups, such as fraternal societies, that are tax- exempt, even though contributions to them are not regarded as charitable and may not be deductible. 6 ) Nonprofit groups today have access to unmatched wealth, dazzling social technology and increasingly sophisticated and data-hungry donors. But challenges abound. They include an intense rivalry for fundraising dollars, whether done face-to-face or by electronic means. In addition, nonprofits have learned that they cannot win or retain support based on the merit of their causes alone—they also must be able to show measurable, transparent results. At a minimum, donors chastened by recent financial upheaval seek greater evidence that donations are making the world a better place. If a particular charity doesn't meet their expectations, alternatives are just a few clicks away on the Internet. Philanthropic Donations Reach High Charitable giving, in $U.S. billions, 1954–2014 Page 2 of 24 The Business of Philanthropy SAGE Business Researcher ©2021 SAGE Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Note: All figures are rounded. Sources: Data from GivingUSA; original graphic from “Giving USA 2015: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2014,” GivingUSA and the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, June 2015; caption information from “Patterns of Charitable Giving,” Congressional Budget Office, Oct. 18, 2011, http://tinyurl.com/n98ekzd Philanthropic donations by foundations, corporations and individuals in the United States rose to a record $358 billion in 2014. Donations increased gradually from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s before jumping 65 percent from 1995 to 2000, a period of strong stock market growth. While giving dipped during recessions in the early and late 2000s, donations have climbed the last five years. “The new philanthropists are challenging the whole setup,” says Richard Feiner, the director of development at the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative, the U.S. arm of a nonprofit based in Geneva. “There is more of an expectation that the nonprofit sector will be run like a business,” he says. It's not a new trend, he says, but it keeps accelerating: “There is more focus now, because so many philanthropists want to see [results] in their lifetimes.” Although many nonprofits operate on shoestring budgets—or fold for lack of funds—the nonprofit sector as a whole has impressive financial muscle. 7 In 2013, total assets surpassed $3 trillion across the 1 million U.S. public charities. Their revenue from government contracts, corporate largesse, charitable foundations and individual fundraising exceeded $1.7 trillion; they spent $1.6 trillion. 8 Nonprofit organizations employed 11.4 million workers in 2012, almost 1 million more than in 2007. 9 That total jumped from 9.2 percent of the private-sector workforce to 10.3 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 10 Elite executive directors, meanwhile, take home high six-figure and even seven-figure salaries. 11 Giving Varies Among Largest Charities Largest charities ranked by donor support, 2014, in $U.S. billions, and their charitable commitment, by percent Page 3 of 24 The Business of Philanthropy SAGE Business Researcher ©2021 SAGE Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Note: “Charitable commitment” measures how much of an organization's total expenses went directly to its charitable purpose, rather than to management, fundraising and certain overhead expenses. Source: “The 50 Largest Charities,” Forbes, December 2014, http://tinyurl.com/b4ujsqn United Way received $3.9 billion in private donations in 2014, more than any other charity in the United States. Among the 10 largest charities, the Atlanta-based Task Force for Global Health was the only one to spend 100 percent of its expenditures for its charitable purpose; the American Cancer Society, by contrast, spent less than three-fourths of its expenditures on charitable services. Organizations that receive donations of goods, known as gifts in kind, tend to show a higher percentage of charitable commitment, according to Forbes, which performed the calculations. Whether an organization builds widgets or advances a charitable cause, effective management can help it succeed. As Peter Drucker, a legendary management guru, wrote about nonprofits more than two decades ago, “They know that they need to learn how to use management as their tool lest they be overwhelmed by it. They know they need management so that they can concentrate on their mission.” 12 Like their for-profit counterparts, nonprofit professionals praise tools to gauge performance, as well as ever-more-sophisticated technology that streamlines operations and makes frequent use of social media. Strategic partnerships and mergers have ticked up in bids to cut costs and increase impact. “By adopting a model that is increasingly common in the business world, nonprofit organizations can launch, test, and implement new programs and services more efficiently and more effectively,” Peter Murray and Steve Ma of nonprofit incubator Accelerate Change wrote in summer 2015. They singled out “lean experimentation” that turns fresh ideas into a series of experiments. For example, they said, managers of the nonprofit Worldreader applied lean experimentation to support its mission of improving literacy in developing countries. They began by giving out e-readers to students in just one school in Ghana, rather than distributing them widely. That experiment showed them that the students kept breaking the e-readers; Worldreader learned that it should teach students to care for the e-readers and also that it should ask the manufacturer to make the devices sturdier. 13 Fundraising strategies that resemble taxable investments or feature tax planning have become fixtures. Those include “impact investing,” shorthand for “investment strategies that generate financial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Givedirectly
    GiveDirectly GiveDirectly provides unconditional cash transfers using cell phone technology to some of the world’s poorest people, as well as refugees, urban youth, and disaster victims. They also are currently running a historic Universal Basic Income initiative, delivering a basic income to 20,000+ people in Kenya in a 12-year study. United States (USD) Donate to GiveDirectly Please select your country & currency. Donations are tax-deductible in the country selected. Founded in Moved Delivered cash to 88% of donations sent to families 2009 US$140M 130K in poverty families Other ways to donate We recommend that gifts up to $1,000 be made online by credit card. If you are giving more than $1,000, please consider one of these alternatives. Check Bank Transfer Donor Advised Fund Cryptocurrencies Stocks or Shares Bequests Corporate Matching Program The problem: traditional methods of international giving are complex — and often inefficient Often, donors give money to a charity, which then passes along the funds to partners at the local level. This makes it difficult for donors to determine how their money will be used and whether it will reach its intended recipients. Additionally, charities often provide interventions that may not be what the recipients actually need to improve their lives. Such an approach can treat recipients as passive beneficiaries rather than knowledgeable and empowered shapers of their own lives. The solution: unconditional cash transfers Most poverty relief initiatives require complicated infrastructure, and alleviate the symptoms of poverty rather than striking at the source. By contrast, unconditional cash transfers are straightforward, providing funds to some of the poorest people in the world so that they can buy the essentials they need to set themselves up for future success.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Paywalled
    Wringing the Most Good Out of a FACEBOOK FORTUNE SAN FRANCISCO itting behind a laptop affixed with a decal of a child reaching for an GIVING apple, an illustration from Shel Silverstein’s The Giving Tree, Cari Tuna quips about endowing a Tuna Room in the Bass Library at Yale Univer- sity, her alma mater. But it’s unlikely any of the fortune that she and her husband, Face- By MEGAN O’NEIL Sbook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, command — estimated by Forbes at more than $9 billion — will ever be used to name a building. Five years after they signed the Giving Pledge, the youngest on the list of billionaires promising to donate half of their wealth, the couple is embarking on what will start at double-digit millions of dollars in giving to an eclectic range of causes, from overhauling the criminal-justice system to minimizing the potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence. To figure out where to give, they created the Open Philanthropy Project, which uses academic research, among other things, to identify high-poten- tial, overlooked funding opportunities. Ms. Tuna, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, hopes the approach will influence other wealthy donors in Silicon The youngest Valley and beyond who, like her, seek the biggest possible returns for their philanthropic dollars. Already, a co-founder of Instagram and his spouse have made a $750,000 signers of the commitment to support the project. What’s more, Ms. Tuna and those working alongside her at the Open Philanthropy Project are documenting every step online — sometimes in Giving Pledge are eyebrow-raising detail — for the world to follow along.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Altruism and Extreme Poverty
    A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/152659 Copyright and reuse: This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications Effective Altruism and Extreme Poverty by Fırat Akova A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Warwick September 2020 Table of Contents Acknowledgments vi Declaration viii Abstract ix Introduction 1 What is effective altruism? 1 What are the premises of effective altruism? 4 The aims of this thesis and effective altruism as a field of philosophical study 11 Chapter 1 13 The Badness of Extreme Poverty and Hedonistic Utilitarianism 1.1 Introduction 13 1.2 Suffering caused by extreme poverty 15 1.3 The repugnant conclusions of hedonistic utilitarianism 17 1.3.1 Hedonistic utilitarianism can morally justify extreme poverty if it is without suffering 19 1.3.2 Hedonistic utilitarianism can morally justify the secret killing of the extremely poor 22 1.4 Agency and dignity: morally significant reasons other than suffering 29 1.5 Conclusion 35 ii Chapter 2 37 The Moral Obligation to Alleviate Extreme Poverty 2.1 Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Altruism: an Elucidation and a Defence1
    Effective altruism: an elucidation and a defence1 John Halstead,2 Stefan Schubert,3 Joseph Millum,4 Mark Engelbert,5 Hayden Wilkinson,6 and ​ ​ ​ James Snowden7 The section on counterfactuals (the first part of section 5) has been substantially revised (14 April 2017). The advice that the Open Philanthropy Project gives to Good Ventures changed in 2016. Our paper originally set out the advice given in 2015. Abstract In this paper, we discuss Iason Gabriel’s recent piece on criticisms of effective altruism. Many of the criticisms rest on the notion that effective altruism can roughly be equated with utilitarianism applied to global poverty and health interventions which are supported by randomised control trials and disability-adjusted life year estimates. We reject this characterisation and argue that effective altruism is much broader from the point of view of ethics, cause areas, and methodology. We then enter into a detailed discussion of the specific criticisms Gabriel discusses. Our argumentation mirrors Gabriel’s, dealing with the objections that the effective altruist community neglects considerations of justice, uses a flawed methodology, and is less effective than its proponents suggest. Several of the 1 We are especially to grateful to Per-Erik Milam for his contribution to an earlier draft of this paper. For very helpful contributions and comments, we would like to thank Brian McElwee, Theron Pummer, Hauke Hillebrandt, Richard Yetter Chappell, William MacAskill, Pablo Stafforini, Owen Cotton-Barratt, Michael Page, and Nick Beckstead. We would also like to thank Rebecca Raible of GiveWell for her helpful responses to our queries, and Catherine Hollander and Holden Karnofsky of the Open Philanthropy Project for their extensive advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Operational Innovations in Cash Grants to Households in Malawi
    Whitepaper series - Operational Innovations in Cash Grants to Households in Malawi Program Report Date: November 2020 This whitepaper was prepared for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Malawi. The contents are the responsibility of GiveDirectly and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements 3 Acronyms 4 1. Executive Summary 5 2. Introduction 6 2.1. Approach: USAID - GiveDirectly Partnership 6 2.2. Introduction to GiveDirectly 8 3. Program Design 8 3.1. Operational Approach 8 3.2. Operational Innovations 11 4. Program Results 18 4.1. Use of Funds 19 4.2. Operational quality findings 21 4.3. Recipients’ Stories 22 5. Impacts of Household Grants and Recommendations for What Next 24 5.1. Gender 24 5.2. Youth Empowerment and Employment 26 5.3. Nutrition 27 5.4. Humanitarian Response 29 6. Conclusions 31 Annex 1 32 Annex 2 36 2 Acknowledgements Authors: Shaunak Ganguly, Omalha Kanjo, Mara Solomon, and Rachel Waddell at GiveDirectly This white paper was prepared for USAID/Malawi. The contents are the responsibility of GiveDirectly and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. 3 Acronyms CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy GD GiveDirectly GoM Government of Malawi HEC Human Elephant Conflict IPA Innovations for Poverty Action IVR Interactive Voice Response KYC Know Your Client PIN Personal Identification Number PPE Personal Protective Equipment RCT Randomized Controlled Trial SCTP Social Cash Transfer Program UCT Unconditional Cash Transfers UNC University of North Carolina 4 1. Executive Summary As part of an ambitious, multi-country partnership and with generous support from USAID and Good Ventures, GiveDirectly (GD) successfully launched its first household grants program in Malawi in early 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Top Charities | Givewell
    12/29/2020 Our Top Charities | GiveWell DONATE GIVING EFFECTIVELY HOW WE WORK TOP CHARITIES RESEARCH OUR MISTAKES ABOUT UPDATES HOME » TOP CHARITIES Our Top Charities Donate to high-impact, cost-effective charities—backed by evidence and analysis Updated annually — Last update: November 2020 Give Effectively Give to cost-effective, evidence-backed charities We search for charities that save or improve lives the most per dollar. These are the best we’ve found. Supported by 20,000+ hours of research annually.( 1) Donate based on evidence—not marketing Even well-meaning charities can fail to have impact. We provide evidence-backed analysis of effectiveness. Pick a charity or give to our Maximum Impact Fund We grant from our Maximum Impact Fund to the charities where we believe donations will help the most. Either way, we take zero fees. Skip to Medicine to prevent malaria Nets to prevent malaria Supplements to prevent vitamin A deficiency Cash incentives for routine childhood vaccines https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities 1/12 12/29/2020 Our Top Charities | GiveWell Treatments for parasitic worm infections Cash transfers for extreme poverty GiveWell’s Maximum Impact Fund CHARITY 1 OF 9 Medicine to prevent malaria Photo credit: Malaria Consortium/Sophie Garcia OVERVIEW https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities 2/12 12/29/2020 Our Top Charities | GiveWell Malaria kills over 400,000 people annually, mostly children under 5 in sub-Saharan Africa.( 2) Seasonal malaria chemoprevention is preventive medicine that saves children’s lives. It is given during the four months of the year when malaria infection rates are especially high.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Altruism: How Big Should the Tent Be? Amy Berg – Rhode Island College Forthcoming in Public Affairs Quarterly, 2018
    Effective Altruism: How Big Should the Tent Be? Amy Berg – Rhode Island College forthcoming in Public Affairs Quarterly, 2018 The effective altruism movement (EA) is one of the most influential philosophically savvy movements to emerge in recent years. Effective Altruism has historically been dedicated to finding out what charitable giving is the most overall-effective, that is, the most effective at promoting or maximizing the impartial good. But some members of EA want the movement to be more inclusive, allowing its members to give in the way that most effectively promotes their values, even when doing so isn’t overall- effective. When we examine what it means to give according to one’s values, I argue, we will see that this is both inconsistent with what EA is like now and inconsistent with its central philosophical commitment to an objective standard that can be used to critically analyze one’s giving. While EA is not merely synonymous with act utilitarianism, it cannot be much more inclusive than it is right now. Introduction The effective altruism movement (EA) is one of the most influential philosophically savvy movements to emerge in recent years. Members of the movement, who often refer to themselves as EAs, have done a great deal to get philosophers and the general public to think about how much they can do to help others. But EA is at something of a crossroads. As it grows beyond its beginnings at Oxford and in the work of Peter Singer, its members must decide what kind of movement they want to have.
    [Show full text]
  • The Institutional Critique of Effective Altruism
    Forthcoming in Utilitas The Institutional Critique of Effective Altruism BRIAN BERKEY University of Pennsylvania In recent years, the effective altruism movement has generated much discussion about the ways in which we can most effectively improve the lives of the global poor, and pursue other morally important goals. One of the most common criticisms of the movement is that it has unjustifiably neglected issues related to institutional change that could address the root causes of poverty, and instead focused its attention on encouraging individuals to direct resources to organizations that directly aid people living in poverty. In this paper, I discuss and assess this “institutional critique.” I argue that if we understand the core commitments of effective altruism in a way that is suggested by much of the work of its proponents, and also independently plausible, there is no way to understand the institutional critique such that it represents a view that is both independently plausible and inconsistent with the core commitments of effective altruism. In recent years, the effective altruism movement has generated a great deal of discussion about the ways in which we (that is, at least those of us who are at least reasonably well off) can most effectively improve the lives of the global poor, and pursue other morally important goals (for example, reducing the suffering of non-human animals, or achieving criminal justice reform in the United States).1 Two of the movement’s most prominent members, Peter Singer and William MacAskill, have each produced a popular book aimed at broad audiences.2 These books, and the efforts of the movement that they represent, have in turn generated a significant amount of critical discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Rejecting Supererogationism Tarsney, Christian
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Groningen University of Groningen Rejecting Supererogationism Tarsney, Christian Published in: Pacific Philosophical Quarterly DOI: 10.1111/papq.12239 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2019 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Tarsney, C. (2019). Rejecting Supererogationism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 100(2), 599-623. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12239 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 26-12-2020 REJECTING SUPEREROGATIONISM BY CHRISTIAN TARSNEY Abstract: Even if I think it very likely that some morally good act is supereroga- tory rather than obligatory, I may nonetheless be rationally required to perform that act.
    [Show full text]
  • The Death of a Flamboyant Charity Wrongdoer Sends a Reminder to Regulators
    November 22, 2011 The Death of a Flamboyant Charity Wrongdoer Sends a Reminder to Regulators Luc Novovitch/Reuters/Newscom William Aramony, the influential executive who built the United Way of America into a charity powerhouse but fell from grace amid fraud charges and an affair with a teenager. By Pablo Eisenberg The death this month of William Aramony, who spent six years in jail for misusing more than $1 - million in United Way of America money when he served as its chief executive, is a reminder of the time when nonprofit miscreants were larger than life, their careers marked by tremendous energy and panache compared with the current crop of unexciting executive frauds. Mr. Aramony got into nonprofit work in 1954 as an earnest and creative local United Way administrator in South Bend, Ind., where he was a much admired figure, and then moved on to executive posts in Columbia, S.C., and Miami. Flamboyant and hard-driving, he quickly established a reputation as an outstanding fund raiser and ardent spokesman for local charities. His skills did not go unnoticed at the national level. In 1970, he was appointed chief executive of the United Community Funds and Council of America, an organization he quickly renamed United Way of America. His drive, ambition, and organizational moxie enabled him to establish a strong national network of more than 2,100 independent units supporting some 47,000 charities, including the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, and a host of social-service organizations, with a total annual budget of more than $3-billion at the height of his leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence-Based Development Cooperation
    EVIDENCE-BASED DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION Greater Effectiveness Through Impact Evaluations POLICY PAPER Despite the unprecedented economic and technological advances of the past decades, roughly one in ten people still live in extreme poverty. This is one of the most urgent ethical problems of our time. Every year, Germany and Switzerland devote billions to development cooperation in order to create opportunities for these people. However, results from scientific research show that both countries finance extremely low-impact projects as well as highly effective ones. This paper introduces the current state of empirical research on development cooperation and recommends the following: particularly impactful projects should be promoted, and less effective projects should be ended; evaluations should be carried out more frequently as impact evaluations, and should meet academic research standards; more financial resources should be provided to achieve these goals; and Germany and Switzerland should affiliate with international research projects on impact measurement, as this would help countless people in need and simultaneously strengthen the trust of voters. January 2018 Policy paper by the Effective Altruism Foundation. Preferred citation: Vollmer, J., Pulver, T., and Zimmer, P. (2017). Evidence-based Development Cooperation: Greater effectiveness through impact evaluations. Policy paper by the Effective Altruism Foundation: 1-15. English translation: Rose Hadshar and Adrian Rorheim. For their feedback and critical input, we would like to
    [Show full text]
  • 990-PF Or Section 4947(A)(1) Trust Treated As Private Foundation | Do Not Enter Social Security Numbers on This Form As It May Be Made Public
    EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER 16, 2020 Return of Private Foundation OMB No. 1545-0047 Form 990-PF or Section 4947(a)(1) Trust Treated as Private Foundation | Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public. Department of the Treasury 2019 Internal Revenue Service | Go to www.irs.gov/Form990PF for instructions and the latest information. Open to Public Inspection For calendar year 2019 or tax year beginning , and ending Name of foundation A Employer identification number THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION 13-1659629 Number and street (or P.O. box number if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite B Telephone number 420 FIFTH AVENUE 212-852-8361 City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code C If exemption application is pending, check here ~ | NEW YORK, NY 10018-2702 G Check all that apply: Initial return Initial return of a former public charity D 1. Foreign organizations, check here ~~ | Final return Amended return 2. Foreign organizations meeting the 85% test, Address change Name change check here and attach computation ~~~~ | X H Check type of organization: Section 501(c)(3) exempt private foundation E If private foundation status was terminated Section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust Other taxable private foundation under section 507(b)(1)(A), check here ~ | X I Fair market value of all assets at end of year J Accounting method: Cash Accrual F If the foundation is in a 60-month termination (from Part II, col. (c), line 16) Other (specify) under section 507(b)(1)(B), check here ~ | | $ 4,929,907,452.
    [Show full text]