A Conversation with

In 1964, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation operated from the dining room table of the Packard household. Assets and grants totaled $17,000. Thirty-five years later, that same foundation is one of the largest in the world-courtesy of yearly contributions, the growth of Hewlett-Packard stock and an astronomical bequest from the estate of David Packard, co-founder of the Hewlett-Packard Company. The foundation employs more than 120 staff, last year had approximately $9 billion in assets, and recently announced a 1999 grants budget of $400 million focusing on population, conservation, science and children.

One man has been there managing this metamorphosis for the last 23 years-Colburn S. Wilbur, this year's Distinguished Grantmaker. David Packard himself appointed Wilbur the foundation's first professional staff person in 1976. Wilbur has an MBA from Stanford and a varied background encompassing computer and banking experience, as well as executive positions at the Sierra Club and Hewlett foundations. He has announced his intention to retire this spring.

Yet, something more than resume highlights and outstanding references solidified this union. Cole Wilbur is a quiet man, and I think David Packard heard something in the quiet but reassuring voice speaking directly to him. Cole's steadiness allowed Packard to rest easily after leaving only a brief outline drafted in 1988 to guide the foundation's work.

Cole's gift came clear to me while editing this interview. I knew Cole wasn't quiet because he didn't have anything to say; I chalked it up to personality, demeanor. Was I wrong? There's a secret to success hiding in the thunderous silence. He let it slip unobtrusively and perhaps unknowingly in his advice to new entrepreneurs, saying simply, "Pay attention. Learn from others. Don't assume you know what the answers are before you really have a chance to listen."

What has it been like watching the foundation grow exponentially?
It has been exciting, challenging and the best career anyone could wish for. When we were very small, I could do most things myself. Now, it takes 120 people to do the work. Learning to delegate portions of my job has been difficult but very important. Then when David Packard died in 1996, we undertook a complete re-evaluation of almost every aspect of the foundation—its grants programs, values and operations.

Was donor intent ever an issue?
The Packard family's second generation takes donor intent and our donor's values (integrity, respect for the individual, effectiveness, building leadership and thinking big) very seriously. We also learned from our donor's methods of operation.

We basically have the same program areas that we had when we were quite small—we've just expanded them and have become much more effective. David Packard always intended to leave discretion and flexibility to future boards. He trusted them and realized that organizations need to change over time.

What did you do to help the foundation prepare for the generational transfer in leadership?
The transition was much easier because the second generation of family had been trustees for many years, ever since they were 21, and had learned to cooperate. They understood what their parents were trying to accomplish. The nonfamily trustees knew David Packard well and what he wished to accomplish. Fortunately, we had two years to plan after David Packard died prior to receiving his estate. Thus we weren't forced into making immediate changes. During those two years the trustees, staff and many others worked together in planning our new programs. Now the third generation is learning by becoming involved on trustee committees and going with staff on site visits.

Describe some of the more successful grant approaches Packard has decided upon.
The first is an opportunity to approach an issue from a variety of different ways such as service, education, research and policy change. Second is to commit ourselves to a project over a long period of time. Third is our Organizational Effectiveness program, which provides management, leadership and support to nonprofits. Fourth is an opportunity to work with corporations and governments through grants and program related investments. We are also spending more time evaluating both our grant programs and ourselves.

What lessons did you learn from the programs you funded that may be considered less successful?
You can almost always learn something from grants that fail. However, the least successful grants we've made are those that bumble along and make very little difference. Some may have had a short-term success—but were unable to be replicated or to teach any lessons. Not all grants will succeed. Grants should fit into a foundation's goals, relate to each other and, when possible, have a measurable goal of their own.

What long-term grants has Packard made that have had some type of measurable impact?
Our largest grants during recent years have been to develop a world-class marine research organization, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. Its research and engineering improvements have been outstanding in the field.

When we first started in our fisheries program, few organizations really worried about or thought of the fact that the fishing fleets are more effective at catching fish than the fish are at reproducing. As the number of fish are being depleted, we have made it one of our goals to increase the number of organizations working on this problem directly or by funding and have been reasonably successful.

We have helped to create a network of neonatal intensive care units throughout the country and internationally, which has helped to improve the quality and efficiency of healthcare for infants. In our population area we are focusing on seven developing countries to assist them in helping women to have just those children they and their families want to have and think they can care for. We have assisted, at their request, Mexican organizations through a series of grants to motivate people, educate teenagers and provide services. During the past few years population projections and actual growth have decreased substantially. The Mexican people themselves are the key factors, but we've played at least a minor role.

What are some of the innovative collaborations this kind of grantmaking must have inspired?
We've had a number of collaborations with government and corporations. We're currently working with the Bank of America by guaranteeing loans to build childcare centers. Bank-funded housing units sometimes have space for a childcare center but existing agencies do not have the money or the background assets to borrow and build the rest of the center. So, guaranteeing these loans has been a great opportunity for both the bank to increase childcare facilities. We are now beginning a collaboration with the Chinese government and U.S. businesses through the Energy Foundation to convert to clean energy systems.

Collaboration with school districts or foreign governments is a smart and productive way to suggest and assist governments to act more effectively.

The Council's top priority is the Communications/Legislative Initiative, which encourages grantmakers to make themselves known to their government representatives. What can you say to inspire foundations to do this from your experience collaborating with government?
If foundations don't become involved, no one else will. I found during testimony before the California state Senate that there was very little knowledge, not only about what foundations were doing—but about the whole nonprofit community.

We spend time visiting with all of our local, state and federal representatives trying to let them know what this foundation and others in California are trying to accomplish. Every time, we've found them to be most receptive and interested, and even surprised at the scope of it. So it has been very valuable.

There are many different ways that a foundation can stimulate governments to undertake a new program or a new project—such as being willing to support research or a model program or an evaluation. And although it can be difficult, it is important to work with federal and local governments, through the Council on Foundations and directly. Recently governments have realized they have fewer funds, and that foundations can be a source of ideas and knowledge, as well as money.

You are known for taking a place on the front lines on controversial issues. What is it that makes you so willing to stick your neck out?
Issues are often considered controversial because they are involved in changing the status quo. I think that one of the most important things a foundation can do is consider and try new ideas. Few others are willing to take this approach. The people who take the risks, however, are the nonprofits that we fund. A foundation should worry whether its goals are the best things to do, and not that they seem controversial.

Why do you have such a strong interest in pursuing ethics for the field?
Considering ethical choices improves grantmaking. It's far too easy to be arrogant, take advantage of others and make decisions based on self-interest. Foundations are not going to lose any customers because of that—grantees seldom complain. By considering what is the ethical thing to do, we all should make better, more effective grants and improve our credibility.

How do you work to make nonprofits think what they're bringing to the table matters just as much as grantmakers?
Part of it is perception. Foundations are just a piece of the action but not as important as the organizations implementing the programs. They need money, but the money is not worth much if you don't have someone capable to carry out a program. You have to really see yourself as being equal. You need to listen, be respectful, be careful in giving advice. Be a partner.

How do you recommend grantmakers keep a fresh perspective and maintain quality grantmaking?
Keep learning. Keep looking for new opportunities and methods. Reconsider ideas decided against in the past. Meet new people. To retain enthusiasm, visit other foundations, go to Council on Foundations meetings, work in the community, actually take some time off and go back and work a little bit in the field that you're funding. Make site visits.

Most of our staff haven't come from another foundation, so we've improved staff training and found that it has made a large difference in the ability of our staff to think broadly and to have a much greater perspective. We encourage all of our staff that have not worked with a nonprofit to spend at least a week working with one, and we pay them their regular salary.

Your award comes as we celebrate the Council's 50th anniversary. What landmarks in the field have you observed over your nearly 25 years with Packard?
Well, there's been a dramatic increase in philanthropy overall—in the number of foundations and the amount of money. A few years ago there were no foundations with more than $1 billion in assets in the West, and now there are seven in California alone. The number of family foundations has grown dramatically.

The expectations for results by foundations are growing. There is more collaboration now among foundations, corporations and nonprofits. There has been an increase in entrepreneurial approaches in grantmaking, such as through program related investments. There has been a change in our relationship with government. They are seldom willing to pick up model foundation programs, but are willing to join foundations collaboratively. Foundations are beginning to communicate what they do, and hopefully will continue to improve. Finally, there has been an increase in women and minorities in the field.

Do you see this as a "great" change in the field's diversity?
During the past 25 years there have been a substantial number of women entering the field of philanthropy; however, as far as racial and other minorities are concerned we have not done as well and should increase the numbers to benefit from their knowledge.

Although in some ways philanthropy has not changed much, in others it is evolving quickly. Because of the great increase in philanthropy by more foundations of all kinds, there are more diverse approaches. This is valuable; however, we do a very poor job of keeping current with each other's attempts and often make the same mistakes or are not familiar with each other's successes.

How will embracing diversity impact philanthropy?
If you mean diversity such as race, ethnicity, gender, political philosophy, etc., I believe diversity substantially helps a foundation in perceiving community needs and methods of approach. It provides a wide variety of viewpoints during any discussion. It also provides a greater pool of talent for a foundation to draw from.

If you mean diversity as different types of grantmaking, I think that as we attempt to solve problems and seek new ideas, the more diversity the better. However, we need to communicate more effectively how we are doing.

What legacy have David and Lucile Packard left this new crop of up-and-coming entrepreneurs?
David and Lucile believed that donors should initiate philanthropy while they are still alive—do something to improve people's lives now rather than waiting until after your death. Enjoy knowing you're changing the world and making it better. The Packards exemplified how to pass on their values and ideas to their children as they joined in the grantmaking. Second, become involved in civic activities. People should be engaged in their community in order to understand it better. Third, think big. Consider a wide variety of options and follow through in your grantmaking. Finally, set an example by the way you operate in the community.

What lessons learned would you share with the new entrepreneurs, the new "Packards"?
Set goals and stick to these goals long enough to give them a real opportunity to succeed—don't expect instant gratification from your money. Look for leaders—good people. People are the key to making any idea work, and the most important thing in any grant is who's going to be carrying it out.

Set values for the foundation, trustees and staff and stick with these over the long run. Pay attention. Learn from others. Don't assume you know what the answers are before you have a chance to really listen. Get involved in the community and try new approaches.

Looking ahead, what are your predictions for the field in the new millennium?
I think there will be a far better use of technology by grantmakers. Foundation trustees and staff will use their imagination more on new methods of dealing with persistent and new challenges.

I think that there will be more results-oriented thinking, especially in new foundations. There will also be a better and continual development of leaders. Fields have a tendency to have a group of leaders all about the same age and then there may be a hiatus. We need to keep building new leadership.

Foundations will become much more capable in their ability to communicate directly and through the media. They also should learn to work more closely with their nonprofit grantees.

Organizational effectiveness of nonprofits is also becoming far more important. Training of foundation staff and board members—as well as nonprofit leaders—will be expected.

There will be better cooperation between foundations, corporations, governments and nonprofits. People will be setting goals to accomplish something beyond individual grants. And there will be more staff diversity in foundations as people begin to realize the real value that such diversity brings to their foundation. Finally, federal, state and local governments will begin to pay more attention to foundations—their taxes, payouts and grantees—and we need to be prepared.

What would you say to the field about foundation accountability and evaluation?
If foundations wish to continue their extensive legal flexibility, we will have to be accountable to the public. Few members of the public, including many nonprofits, understand what foundations do and why. We need to provide informative and helpful information.

Evaluation is very important—if you're trying to determine what difference your foundation is making. If we are really attempting to change and improve our community and world, "gut feelings" and intuition are not enough. An evaluation allows one to test hypotheses and learn both from mistakes and successes. Foundations should evaluate themselves also. One approach we have taken is to survey grantees and applicants who have not received grants and learn what they think of us.

How would you encourage foundations to increase their level of accountability?
Having an excellent Web site is a very good way to start. Publish an annual report. But accountability also means meeting and listening to people in your grantmaking areas—local or international. Pay attention to others' ideas for change and ways to look at things differently. Be as open as possible in describing the type of grantmaking in which you are involved. Explain why you have an interest and your process. Measure your results.

Now that you're retiring from Packard, what are your plans?
I will continue to be very involved in the nonprofit community. I have been asked to join the board of the Packard foundation and to continue to work on a few of our programs. I'm also planning to help other foundations and nonprofits that are going through a transition or just starting up. I also plan to remain active with the Council on Foundations.