Fred Crawford and Fifty Golden Years of Philanthropy

I would quote a statement by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. about “evaluations” to the volunteer solicitors to explain this approach:

“Another suggestion I liked to have made to me by a solicitor, is how much it is hoped I will give. Of course such a suggestion can be made in a way that might be most annoying. I do not like to have anyone tell me when it is my duty to give. There is just one man who is going to decide that question, who has the responsibility of deciding it, and that is myself. But I do like a man to say to me, ‘We are trying to raise X millions of dollars and are hoping you may be desirous of giving blank dollars.’ If you see your way clear to do so, it will be an encouragement. You may have it in mind to give more. If so, we will be glad. On the other hand, you may feel that you cannot give as much in view of other responsibilities. In that case, we shall understand. Whatever you give after thinking the matter over carefully, in light of our need, your other obligations, and your desire to do your full share as a citizen, will be gratefully received and deeply appreciated.”

Because of leaders like Fred Crawford, Charlie Spahr, Charlie White, Kent and Kelvin Smith, “pledging” was embedded in Cleveland, especially among people who controlled much of the wealth. Their leadership, in turn, affected the giving of people all the way down the line. The “Top 100” philosophy wherein we asked the 100 top prospects to give 75% of the total of a campaign, the next 400 to give about 20%, and all the other hundreds of givers to provide the last 5% provided a structure for success. The amount of the first ten or so givers in major campaigns which occurred in this half century was also critical. We knew that campaigns develop from the “inside out.” Often, one exemplary gift initiated the process. Kent Smith’s $4 million matching gift to the $8 million Museum of Natural History campaign, is an example. This was “revolutionary” giving at a time when million dollar gifts in the nation were only a handful. From a corporate standpoint, exemplary giving through Lubrizol, Sohio, Republic, and especially Fred Crawford’s leadership through TRW, set a pattern for the entire community.

Whether another Fred Crawford will emerge is doubtful. Now, concentration on government giving, rather than the private sector, seems to me to be a negative factor. The trends toward a social welfare state, in my opinion, will tend to blunt the great philanthropic achievements which have been evident in Cleveland and in our nation. Fred Crawford always supported “progress” even when it seemed to be a questionable type of progress, so perhaps I’m wrong.

In any event, we still have his legacy -- past, present, and future.