Up for Debate: Should Foundations Increase Their Payouts During Big Crises?

The onset of COVID-19 has amplified discussions about philanthropic spending during an economic downturn, with some observers saying that a big crisis like the pandemic should compel funders to not just maintain their outlays, but to disburse more. In this SSIR "Up for Debate" series, Larry Kramer, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, explains why "a funder might credibly think it wiser not to increase payout during an economic downturn, even a severe one." He further writes:

I hope to show that this is so not only because people might reasonably disagree about the right thing to do, but also because there might actually be more than one right thing to do. What is appropriate for one funder may not be appropriate for another, and what is apt for a funder at one time may not be fitting even for the same funder at a different time.

Are funders who do not increase their payout putting “math over mission,” prioritizing the size of their endowments rather than the needs of dedicated nonprofit organizations and the communities they serve? Is preserving capital for future needs a “paternalistic, narcissistic notion” held by people who “live in a bubble of privilege wrapped in another bubble of delusion,” as some critics have decried?

In Kramer's keystone article that launched this edition of "Up for Debate," he takes on these questions and more. Responses to his arguments from nine prominent civil society leaders, along with Kramer's rejoinder to these commentators, are listed below. Have a perspective of your own you'd like to share? Join the discussion by leaving a comment on Kramer's piece or any of the other provocative essays.