Driven by curiosity about where Oregon’s philanthropic dollars are tied up, this research project took a deep, unrestricted look into the state's private foundation landscape.
The goal was to analyze the data, expose the structural friction within traditional giving, and provide funders with the insights needed to design more impactful, engaged grant programs.
Combing the Data
I analyzed nearly every private foundation in Oregon with assets of $25,000 or more.
Combed through the IRS 990 filings of all 264 private foundations in the state—analyzing filings ranging from 10 to over 100 pages.
Together, these foundations represent billions of dollars in accumulated assets, including cash, bonds, and specialized holdings.
The Core Imbalance: Corpus vs. Community
A foundational insight emerged regarding how these entities are structured. Many foundation boards are heavily insulated by CPAs and legal teams whose primary mandate is defensive: protect the corpus (the core wealth) and look out for the betterment of the family.
Whatever is left over after wealth preservation is what trickles down to nonprofits. This creates an inherently imbalanced model. Sometimes, what is best for a vulnerable community is exactly what isn't best for the growth of a private foundation's corpus.
The "Presence" Problem
The data revealed a stark lack of active presence and engagement between private foundations and the nonprofits they ostensibly support:
Over 150 foundations oversee a collective $5 billion in assets, yet their boards of trustees spend five hours or less per week combined managing the foundation.
Of those 150, 63 foundations report spending zero hours a week on their foundation.
Rather than practicing responsive giving, these foundations favor preselected charities tied to personal networks, family legacies, or alma maters. They frequently write large checks to well-connected institutions—some of which hold more cash reserves than the foundations themselves—while other community needs go unnoticed.
The Seven Archetypes of Oregon Foundations
Through this research, Oregon's private foundations were categorized into seven distinct behavioral profiles:
Foundation Typology | Operational Behavior |
The Community Devotee | Highly visible, deeply embedded, and actively listening to community needs (e.g., The Marie Lamfrom Foundation). |
The Faith-Based Steward | Capital is strictly allocated to preselected organizations tied directly to a specific faith or denomination. |
The Well-Meaning Absentee | Selects reputable causes (like animal shelters) and provides an outreach email, but rarely—if ever—responds to inquiries. |
The Conflicted Funder | Fractured internally. One trustee pushes to fund small, nimble grassroots nonprofits, while another insists on funding a wealthy insider's organization (even if that charity holds more cash reserves than the foundation’s entire corpus). |
The Dynasty Builder | Directs funding exclusively to their family's elite alma maters or legacy institutions to preserve social standing—no questions asked. |
The Sophisticated Funder | Run by a tiny, hyper-insulated board typically consisting of just a spouse, a cousin, and an attorney. |
The Extraction Model | Massive resource pools controlled entirely by an individual or a few family members. Sometimes they pay themselves administrative salaries ($50k–$100k) to manage the entity, while only distributing one or two gifts a year to national organizations. |
This research serves as a blueprint for progressive funders. By bringing in grant strategists and administrative experts to establish proactive, transparent systems, foundations can move away from passive, wealth-sheltering structures and move toward an engaged model of presence—one where community agency and funder resources actually align.
