Editors’ Note: Katherine Badertscher introduces a recent article she published with Huitan Xu in The Foundation Review on “Philanthropic Archives and Legacy.”

In 2024, my colleague Huitan Xu and I investigated the feasibility of creating a single “legacy library” to house archival material of individual philanthropists and foundations—a single repository for scholars, practitioners, donors and their families. We scanned literature regarding knowledge preservation and archiving. The literature and practice review identifies recurring decision moments, trade-offs, and operating models that shape archiving strategies for philanthropy. We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with archivists, consultants, and foundation executives to understand decision-making processes, perceived barriers, and practical considerations.

Our recent article in The Foundation Review synthesizes this research. We find that there is no single guidance appropriate across the spectrum of foundations and family philanthropies. Given foundation heterogeneity, records management and archiving require tailored approaches rather than a “one-size-fits-all” solution or even single repository.

“We are what we keep”

Foundation archiving in the United States today encompasses a spectrum of strategic approaches, from treating records as private assets to viewing them as vital public resources for public good. At one end of this spectrum, foundations such as the John M. Olin Foundation adopted a restricted model: instead of a public repository, it granted exclusive access to a historian to write its authorized history, A Gift of Freedom. No public repository was established, keeping the extensive internal records private. In contrast, some institutions emphasize professional, accessible preservation, exemplified by the Rockefeller Archive Center (RAC), which houses collections from Rockefeller philanthropies as well as from numerous large foundations, including Ford, Hewlett, and Knight, among others, and provides standardized preservation and research access under clear policies. The Ford Foundation transferred its historical records to the RAC in 2011, viewing its institutional history as a strategic resource to inform both scholarly and internal practices in contemporary work. The RAC, the Ford Foundation, and other partners have led field-wide advocacy through initiatives such as the “Advancing Foundation Archives” conference to foster a community of practice focused on philanthropic archiving.

Archiving is a critical component of closing spend-down foundations, involving early planning and strategic partnerships. For instance, Atlantic Philanthropies endowed and established a digitally accessible archive at Cornell University to ensure vibrant, ongoing use. The Beldon Fund partnered with Indiana University years before its sunset to ensure systematic records transfer. Alternative models prioritize controlled narratives over open access. The S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, determining that a full archive was too costly, created a “Legacy Collection” on Candid’s IssueLab to share practical reports and lessons learned. Other foundations are navigating the practical and ethical challenges inherent in archival practice. One foundation CEO we interviewed underscored common hurdles: managing hybrid records (i.e., paper and digital); an initial focus on internal cataloging over public access; and the absence of clear founder intent, which creates tension between confidentiality and potential future knowledge dissemination.

The transition from paper to digital records exacerbates decision making. Managing and archiving email has become a monumental and persistent challenge for philanthropic organizations. Absence of consistent digital filing practices often leads to disorganization. As one interviewee said, “Everybody is typing, and nobody is filing.” Compounding this, a common misconception that websites function as permanent archives can undermine systematic preservation efforts. Ensuring consistent staff adherence to archiving procedures, particularly during transitions, remains difficult. Routine actions such as resaving files can erase vital metadata, compromising records’ provenance and future utility. Email creates reluctance to archive due to its high volume, inconsistent management, and the frequent inclusion of sensitive content.

Sector-wide practice remains inconsistent. We did not find a significant increase in the number of foundations maintaining their archives. The digital era compounds these challenges, necessitating sophisticated strategies for born-digital records, a key focus of field-building initiatives like Advancing Foundation Archives. Furthermore, foundations grapple with core tensions between transparency and privacy, and between legacy-building and fear of historical misinterpretation. The current frontier of practice, therefore, involves navigating these complexities by committing to early planning, pursuing professional partnerships—either independent non-profit centers, historical societies or libraries, academic institutions, in-house archives, or online platforms—and moving beyond mere preservation to support future knowledge sharing and field-wide impact.

“There is something very intimate about archives – phrases people use, their handwriting. I feel a solemn obligation to tell a story responsibly”

Records don’t change hands without an event that triggers action. Archiving is a tool for preserving memory, facilitating learning, and ensuring accountability, and there has to be some reason for doing so. Most of the sentinel events we identified that trigger archiving decisions involve the end of a life or the closing of an organization or program: founder’s illness or death, founder’s retirement, generational transfer of wealth or leadership, organizations downsizing staff, foundation spenddown, mergers, significant project completion, anniversaries, and office moves. These events may be celebratory in many ways, yet they are still emotionally heavy.

For individual and family philanthropies, archives function as both historical records and emotional agents through which donors engage with their own or their loved ones’ past, memories, and legacies. Archivists told us that their profession is intertwined with emotion, loss, and care work, although dealing with grief is rarely acknowledged. Receiving records may even feel “like an act of love” that both archivist and donor have to navigate. Archival records “aren’t just pieces of paper,” they are treasured documents and images of real lives and organizations that deserve recognition—if not reverence. Archival training focuses largely on information—and less on the donor relations or the emotional toll that a collection could mean for researchers or themselves. On the other hand, donors express fear of witnessing their philanthropic legacy reduced to sets of documents with information they no longer control. For ill, aging, or dying philanthropists, transferring records may operate as a final gesture of caregiving, often accompanied by both grief and relief. One advisor described a second-generation family’s experience of reading a father’s speeches as if “their dad died again,” precisely because the legacy remained vivid through the records. Archiving thus preserves both documents and meaning, enabling families and organizations to construct coherent accounts of values and impact across generations.

“We want to share the stuff we never figured out”

In 2012 Commonwealth Fund COO John Craig described U.S. foundation archives as “an endangered species”; this remains true today. Yet foundation archiving supports core functions of governance and legitimacy. It preserves institutional knowledge through leadership transitions, enabling new leaders to build on organizational history. Archives provide historical insight that helps philanthropic leaders learn from experience and make better strategic decisions. Foundation stakeholders, including front line staff from International House, the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, and the Simons Foundation, report learning about past programs—what worked, and what didn’t.

Archives shape organizational identity, record achievements and values, strengthen culture, and serve as resources for training and communication. Finally, archives can cultivate continuous learning by documenting past decision-making and may protect organizations from misinformed scrutiny from regulators, media, academics, or the public by providing accurate documentation of organizational activities. One archivist reported a recent surge in interest in 1970s philanthropy, for example, as researchers seek to understand donating and grantmaking to environmental causes. Records can answer questions such as: What were the environmental debates fifty years ago? Who was donating and why? Did foundations shift their priorities? What worked—and what didn’t?

“Knowledge needs a caretaker”

Practical, financial, and technical barriers explain why systematic archiving remains the exception rather than the norm. Resource constraints and pressure to minimize overhead compound this reluctance. Lack of staff time is a primary deterrent, particularly as institutions become leaner and reduce administrative capacity. As John Craig found in 2012, and Bechtel’s Keeping What Counts notes, establishing formal archiving is often seen as costly, time-consuming, appealing to narrow audiences, and challenging to implement and maintain.

Foundation and archival staff understand their own domains of practice, but not necessarily each others’. Several interviewees observed that leaders worry records will be misused or approached with an agenda, what one foundation CEO named a “gotcha” mentality, especially when materials involve sensitive topics or vulnerable populations. An archivist, moreover, reports that potential donors may perceive records as “smoking guns” or embarrassing facts waiting to be unearthed. Another archivist reminded us that the archival profession is insular—replete with jargon, implicit and explicit rules of engagement, creating shrouds of mystery and barriers to understanding. They hope the profession currently is evolving from research “gatekeeper” to research “navigator” to increase accessibility and enhance community outreach.

“If your organization values its history, you must act”

Archiving requires planning and intentionality. If organizations, philanthropists, and their families seek to preserve their histories, they can transition from approaches that simply tell stories—such as Olin’s—to approaches that preserve materials for public use—such as Atlantic’s. Local archival institutions typically include historical societies, universities, and public libraries. Valuable records can include emails, correspondence, diaries, speeches, legal documents, minutes and reports, photographs, audiovisual materials, and websites. Archives have to operate like businesses, thus have limited capacity—so we advise consulting with archival institutions to ensure records fit the institution’s collecting scope or to request information about a more suitable, nearby repository.

Foundation leaders must establish clear expectations, secure necessary resources, and integrate archiving considerations into strategic planning, while actively modeling the value of archives. Effective archiving requires committed executive leadership and organization-wide engagement, regardless of strategy. For foundations, two governance instruments are critical to facilitate records management: a records management policy and a records retention schedule. Finding aids, summaries, and inventories with consistent terminology codify retained records.

We call on philanthropies to select a location and an institutional home. Foundations may choose an archival repository that aligns with their grantmaking focus or is situated in their communities. Potential options include national or local colleges and universities, historical societies, public libraries, and cultural institutions. Major national foundations may place records with a dedicated national philanthropy archive, while place-based institutions may find a stronger affinity with local or regional repositories.

“Publications or legacy websites are just the tip of the iceberg…we’re going to inspire other foundations [to archive their history]”

The time has come to disseminate stories of successful records preservation and inform donors on best practices for preserving their stories of impact and guiding them to archival institutions in their communities. The philanthropic sector can strengthen leadership advocacy and media outreach to counter the misconception that only the records of major foundations matter. Archivists expressed interest in collecting records from grassroots organizations and individuals, yet many donors assume that their histories are insignificant. Supportive and membership organizations can host forums and workshops that guide participants through the archiving process and advocate for archiving to be recognized as a legitimate philanthropic expense. Collaborative initiatives can pool expertise, build norms, and expand capacity without creating new entities. The Advancing Foundation Archives partners exemplify a community of archivists, foundation leaders, and legal experts coming together to share practices. The image of the mysterious, white-gloved keeper of the keys to the creaky gate at the archives’ front door belongs in the past. Philanthropy archivists are storytellers and business partners—and they are in your communities.

-Katherine Badertscher

Katherine Badertscher is Assistant Dean of Academic Programs at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.