“There are too many urgent problems to solve for me to hold onto resources that could be used to help people,” wrote my friend and former colleague Bill Gates when he recently announced a revised timeline for his foundation’s future. Rather than disburse all funds within fifty years of his passing, the richest philanthropic foundation in the United States (where I formerly served as CEO) will now spend all its resources by 2045.
Bill’s announcement is one of the more notable recent examples of philanthropists “giving in time,” or choosing to re-invest their resources into society by a fixed date rather than creating foundations meant to last into perpetuity. My wife Tricia and I have long been advocates for this approach, and our own foundation is planning to spend down its funds over the next fifteen years. This approach feels especially urgent in a moment of heightened political volatility, deepening polarization and urgent social need.
Consider the larger context. In a New York Times interview about his foundation’s new plan, Bill discussed the need to support global health initiatives in light of slashed U.S. funding. Similarly, the Stupski Foundation (which is spending down by 2029) announced in July that it was awarding 76% of remaining grant funds this year in light of “alarming attacks on our democracy, health, education, and food system.” In short, the urgency of the moment underscores the need for nonprofits to mobilize resources quickly. However, even before this current political era, giving in time has been both a smart and increasingly popular choice for foundations.
According to a 2020 report by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, “nearly half of the [philanthropic] organizations established in the 2010s were founded as time-limited vehicles,” up from roughly 20% in 1980. That same year, 2020, the Atlantic Philanthropies closed its doors on schedule, as per its founder Chuck Feeney’s “giving while living” philosophy. “I see little reason to delay giving when so much good can be achieved through supporting worthwhile causes today,” Feeney said at the time. “Besides, it’s a lot more fun to give while you live than to give while you are dead.”
Before closing, the Atlantic Philanthropies created invaluable resources for other nonprofit funders to learn from its example, particularly the handbook “Operating for Limited Life.” Another great resource is “Giving in Time: Temporal Considerations in Philanthropy,” a collection of essays that offers a concise history of this approach. To cite one very early example, after building nearly 5,000 schools for African American students, the Julius Rosenwald Fund became the first ever private philanthropy to end on schedule in 1948. “Contemporary needs are the only needs of which we can be certain,” Rosenwald once said of his reasoning, “and it is those needs that we must seek to serve.”
From our own experience, I would add a few more reasons for philanthropic foundations to adopt the giving-in-time approach.
First, founders take risks, and so should philanthropies. Entrepreneurs take risks to earn their wealth. By contrast, perpetual philanthropies often prioritize preserving their endowments and brands over time. This can dampen risk-taking and slow bold action, especially if the institution’s leaders lose contact with the vision and passion of the founders.
Second, giving with an end point in time brings focus and urgency. A deadline sharpens focus. Preparing for closure forces clarity on which grants and initiatives truly advance a philanthropy’s mission. For example, in July, the Gates Foundation and several partners announced the launch of NextLadder Ventures, a $1 billion effort to expand economic opportunity for low-income Americans. While it began within the foundation, NextLadder is spinning out as its own entity because its very worthy mission is distinct from the foundation’s global health and nutrition focus. Importantly, NextLadder’s CEO, Ryan Rippel, announced that it will end in 15 years—a concrete example of giving in time.
Third, spending down encourages leaders to plan for what’s next. When foundations set an end date, funding leaders must prepare for sustainability beyond their own resources. Knowing when the money ends makes it essential to help grantees secure other funding. Just as nonprofits often take in earned revenue through donations and services, I call this idea “earned capital” – finding funds that can both supplement a non-profit’s mission and potentially continue it forward after the target date is reached.
There are many other arguments I could make in favor of giving in time. Still, ultimately it comes down to this: From political polarization to climate change to widening inequality, we face serious challenges that catalytic philanthropy can help address. There’s no better time than now for philanthropy to act with urgency, focus, and creativity.
Jeff Raikes is a cofounder of the Raikes Foundation, which works to ensure that every young person in America has an opportunity to thrive. He has previously served as president of Microsoft’s Business Division and CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Related Inside Philanthropy Resources:
For Subscribers Only
