William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

📋Page Status

Page Type:ContentStyle Guide →Standard knowledge base article

Quality:55 (Adequate)

Importance:45 (Reference)

Last edited:2026-02-03 (3 days ago)

Words:3.3k

Structure:

📊 2📈 0🔗 2📚 31•0%Score: 11/15

LLM Summary:The Hewlett Foundation is a $14.8 billion philanthropic organization that focuses primarily on AI cybersecurity rather than AI alignment or existential risk, distinguishing it from AI safety-focused funders like Open Philanthropy. While comprehensive in covering the foundation's history and controversies, the article provides limited actionable insights for AI safety practitioners.

Critical Insights (3):

GapDespite being one of the largest U.S. foundations with $14.8 billion in assets and $473 million in annual grantmaking, Hewlett has no documented theory of change for AI risks comparable to its detailed frameworks for climate and education.S:3.0I:3.5A:3.0
NeglectedThe Hewlett Foundation allocated over $8 million to AI cybersecurity research (including $2M to Georgetown CSET and $5M to FAMU) while explicitly avoiding AI alignment or existential risk work, distinguishing it from other major AI safety funders.S:3.0I:3.0A:3.0
DebateThe foundation simultaneously funded both American Compass (which contributed to Project 2025) with $1.5M and Planned Parenthood with over $100M since 2000, raising unresolved questions about what 'nonpartisan' means in philanthropic practice.S:3.5I:2.5A:2.0

Quick Assessment

Aspect	Details
Founded	1966 by William R. Hewlett and Flora Lamson Hewlett
Assets	Approximately $14.8 billion (2024)¹
Annual Grantmaking	$473 million in charitable disbursements (2024)¹
Key Program Areas	Education, Environment, Democracy, Effective Philanthropy, Gender Equity, Performing Arts
Notable AI Work	$8+ million in AI cybersecurity grants; limited AI safety/alignment focus
Headquarters	Menlo Park, California

Canonical Links

Source	Link
Official Website	hewlett.org
Wikipedia	en.wikipedia.org

Overview

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation is one of the largest private foundations in the United States, with approximately $14.8 billion in assets as of 2024.¹ Established in 1966 by Hewlett-Packard co-founder William R. Hewlett and his wife Flora Lamson Hewlett, the foundation operates independently from Hewlett-Packard and focuses on promoting human well-being through strategic grantmaking.²³

The foundation’s philanthropic approach emphasizes long-term partnerships, measurable outcomes, and collaborative relationships with grantees.⁴ Its major program areas include education reform, environmental conservation and climate change, U.S. democracy and governance, effective philanthropy, gender equity, and performing arts—with particular emphasis on Bay Area institutions.⁵ The foundation awards thousands of grants annually, ranging from approximately $10,000 to nearly $20 million, with most grants falling between $50,000 and $750,000.⁵

While the foundation has supported progressive causes throughout its history, it has recently drawn criticism for funding organizations with ties to right-wing initiatives, creating tension with its stated nonpartisan mission.⁶⁷ The foundation’s work in AI focuses primarily on cybersecurity risks rather than AI alignment or existential safety concerns, distinguishing it from foundations like Open Philanthropy that prioritize AI existential risk.⁸⁹¹⁰

History

Founding and Early Years (1966-1977)

William R. Hewlett, co-founder of Hewlett-Packard Company (established in 1939), created the William R. Hewlett Foundation in 1966 alongside his wife Flora Lamson Hewlett and their eldest son Walter B. Hewlett in their Palo Alto, California home.¹¹¹²¹³ The period from 1966 to 1972 became known as “the living room years,” during which family members met informally at home to decide how the foundation could do the most good.⁴

The initial board consisted of Bill Hewlett, Flora Hewlett, and Walter Hewlett. In 1972, the board expanded to include additional family members William A. Hewlett and James S. Hewlett.¹¹ The foundation operated with minimal formal structure during these early years, with the founders personally selecting beneficiaries and donating Hewlett-Packard stock to fund operations. By 1975, annual disbursements had reached nearly $3 million.¹⁴

The foundation hired its first executive director, John May (previously executive of the San Francisco Foundation), in 1974.¹¹ Following Flora Hewlett’s death in 1977, the foundation was renamed The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation in her memory, with the bulk of her fortune transferred to the organization.¹¹¹² That same year, former University of California Chancellor Roger W. Heyns was appointed president, with Bill Hewlett serving as board chair.¹¹

Expansion and Professionalization (1977-2000)

Under Roger Heyns’ leadership, which lasted 15 years until his retirement in 1993, the foundation began to professionalize its operations and expand its program areas.¹⁵ David P. Gardner, former President of the University of California, served as president from 1993 to 1999, significantly expanding programs in environmental conservation, education reform, and U.S.-Latin American relations.¹⁵

The foundation’s early focus areas included conflict resolution, education, environment, family and community development, performing arts, population issues, and U.S.-Latin American relations.² The foundation also established a long history of media funding dating back more than 50 years, beginning with one of its first grants to what is now known as KQED.¹⁶

William R. Hewlett remained actively involved with the foundation until his death from heart failure on January 12, 2001, at age 87.¹¹ By 1981, the majority of the board had transitioned from family members to independent trustees, reflecting the foundation’s evolution into a professional philanthropic institution.¹¹

Theory of Change Era (2000-2012)

In January 2000, Paul Brest, former dean of Stanford Law School, was appointed president and served for 12 years.¹¹ Under Brest’s direction during 2001-2002, the foundation pioneered the implementation of a theory of change model (also called a causal theory or logic model) to structure strategic planning and evaluation efforts.¹⁷ This approach, which has since been adopted by other mission-based organizations, informed the foundation’s grantmaking strategies, grantee selection, and program performance evaluations.¹⁷

The Brest era saw increased focus on grants for curbing global warming and expanding open educational resources.¹¹ The foundation also relocated to its current headquarters in Menlo Park, California during this period.¹¹ In 2008, the foundation announced a joint $1 billion climate initiative with ClimateWorks Foundation, one of its largest program commitments.⁵

Recent Leadership and Strategic Evolution (2012-Present)

Larry Kramer, also a former Stanford Law School dean, served as president from 2012 to December 2023.¹⁵ Under Kramer’s leadership, the foundation introduced new initiatives addressing political polarization, cybersecurity, and information ecosystems.¹⁵ In 2023, the foundation began a three-year exploration to support efforts promoting healthier information ecosystems, with the goal of making targeted investments that support inclusive, durable democracies.¹⁶

The foundation’s assets have grown substantially over the decades, from approximately $2 billion in the 1990s to over $6 billion in the early 2000s, reaching approximately $14.8 billion by 2024.¹¹¹ In 2019, the foundation provided $123.3 million in grants for international development according to OECD data,¹¹ and by 2023 this had increased to $181.5 million.¹⁸

The foundation has made strategic shifts in several program areas. Its U.S. Democracy Program, launched in 2014 as the Madison Initiative with a $150 million commitment, evolved into an expanded effort that committed approximately $45 million in 2024 to strengthen electoral processes and governing institutions.¹⁹

Major Program Areas

Education

The foundation has maintained a consistent focus on education reform throughout its history, with particular emphasis on open educational resources and distance learning. In April 2020, the foundation launched a comprehensive open education grant-making strategy.²⁰ Over the decade from 2010-2019, the foundation awarded 606 grants totaling $214.1 million to 65 universities across 18 countries, with a median grant award of $250,000.²⁰

The foundation’s education work emphasizes accessibility and equity, supporting initiatives that expand educational opportunities for underserved populations. According to data from IRS Form 990-PF filings, education-related organizations received thousands of grants from the foundation, making it one of the largest focus areas by recipient count.²¹

Environment and Climate

Environment and climate constitute the foundation’s largest program area by dollar volume. Major grantees include the European Climate Foundation, ClimateWorks Foundation, and Energy Foundation, each receiving several million dollars annually.⁵ The foundation also supports smaller organizations like C40 Cities and Carbon180 working on urban climate solutions and carbon removal technologies.⁵

In recent years, the foundation has emphasized climate communication and public engagement. A $20 million commitment in 2020 aimed to shift public discourse on climate solutions, supporting groups like the Digital Climate Coalition and Global Strategic Communications Council to combat digital disinformation about climate science.²² The foundation also provided $700,000 to the Partnership Project in 2017 for the Climate Advocacy Lab and Methane Partners Campaign, and $232,000 to Colorado College in 2017 for public opinion research on climate issues.¹⁴

U.S. Democracy and Governance

The foundation’s democracy work evolved from the Madison Initiative, a $150 million commitment launched in 2014 focused on campaign finance reform and strengthening Congress.¹⁹ The current U.S. Democracy Program, directed by Ali Noorani, builds on this foundation with an expanded focus on electoral processes, civic participation, government performance, and reducing political polarization.¹⁹

In 2024, the foundation committed approximately $45 million to democracy-related work, building on a history of $96.9 million in such grants from 2014-2018, making it the second-largest funder in this space after the Ford Foundation.¹⁹ Recent grants have supported tech and government modernization efforts, including the New Venture Fund’s Tech Talent Project to address federal tech talent gaps, and unrestricted funding to the Congressional Management Foundation, Former Members of Congress, and Bipartisan Policy Center for House Select Committee on Modernization efforts.¹⁹

The foundation has also launched in-group moderation strategies focused on improving social media content safety and accuracy through partnerships with center-right organizations like conservative faith communities, with planned expansion to center-left partners to counter misinformation.¹⁹

Effective Philanthropy

The foundation’s Effective Philanthropy program seeks to “strengthen the capacity” of Hewlett grantees and advance best practices across the philanthropic sector.⁵ A key substrategy, Knowledge for Better Philanthropy, supports organizations producing “independent, high-quality knowledge about practical matters facing foundations,” including academic centers and investigative journalism organizations that encourage dialogue and debate about philanthropy.⁵

Grants stemming from this program have supported organizations including Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy, Council on Foundations, Hispanics in Philanthropy, and Funders for LGBTQ Issues.⁵ Program officer Norma Altshuler has engaged with the effective altruism community through participation in EA Global events and providing career advice to those interested in high-impact work.

The foundation has demonstrated commitment to transparency in this area, commissioning external evaluations of its own strategies and publishing results even when programs underperformed. Harder & Co. social impact consultants conducted an evaluation of the foundation’s Knowledge Creation and Dissemination strategy, with the foundation publicly sharing findings about both successes and failures to inform future investments.²³

Performing Arts

The foundation maintains strong support for performing arts organizations, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. In a recent year, the foundation provided over $40 million to Bay Area arts organizations including Berkeley Repertory Theatre and Yerba Buena Center for the Arts.⁵ This focus area reflects Flora Hewlett’s personal passion for the performing arts and represents one of the foundation’s longest-standing program commitments.¹²

Other Program Areas

Additional program areas include Gender Equity and Governance, Racial Justice (with $1,675,000 granted to the Action Center on Race and Economy Institute from 2020-2023),¹⁴ and Special Projects that address emerging issues and opportunities.⁵

AI and Cybersecurity Work

The foundation’s engagement with artificial intelligence focuses primarily on cybersecurity risks rather than AI alignment or existential safety concerns. This distinguishes the Hewlett Foundation from organizations like Open Philanthropy that prioritize AI existential risk research.

Georgetown CSET CyberAI Project

In November 2024, the foundation awarded a $2 million grant to Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) for the CyberAI project, a two-year research initiative examining AI’s effects on cyber operations.⁸ Led by Ben Buchanan, the project investigates threats to cybersecurity from AI-enabled attacks, automation in cyber defense, the potential for faster cyber attacks, AI system vulnerabilities to hacking, and policy implications for national security.⁸

According to Buchanan, AI presents dual potential: it can aid defenders through improved breach detection systems, but also enable attackers to conduct faster and more sophisticated offensive cyber operations.⁸ The grant builds on CSET’s established reputation for data science and impartial analysis in technology policy.

FAMU Cyber Policy Institute

The foundation provided a $5 million grant to Florida A&M University’s Cyber Policy Institute to support AI cybersecurity research and education initiatives spanning 2025-2026.⁹ The grant supports faculty fellows including Interim Director Darryl Scriven, Ph.D., Chiquita Brown, Ph.D., Deanna Burney, Ph.D., Tejal Mulay, Ph.D., and Phylicia Taylor, Ph.D.⁹

The initiative includes an AI student internship program (with the first cohort of 10 students beginning in 2025 and a second cohort planned for Spring 2026), an AI Community Learning Series, white paper development, national partnership building, and AI policy advising capacity.⁹ The program is housed across FAMU’s Colleges of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Science and Technology, reflecting an interdisciplinary approach to AI cybersecurity challenges.⁹

Institute for Security and Technology

In July 2022, the foundation awarded a $1 million grant to the Institute for Security and Technology (IST) through its Cyber Initiative, directed by Kelly Born.¹⁰ The grant renewed support for IST’s cybersecurity work, including its Ransomware Task Force, Democracy and Geopolitics of Technology practice, and expansion of senior staff.¹⁰

According to Megan Stifel, IST’s Chief Strategy Officer, philanthropic funding is essential for developing policy and technical solutions to address ransomware and broader security threats.¹⁰ Kelly Born emphasized IST’s role in bridging industry, advocacy, and government to address cyber vulnerabilities.¹⁰

Disinformation Research Investment

In 2018, the foundation committed $10 million to research on disinformation following post-2017 webinars on the topic.²⁴ The initiative revealed significant challenges including tech company control of data, privacy issues, inadequate legal frameworks, and political barriers to solutions.²⁴ The foundation subsequently shifted focus toward supporting “healthy information ecosystems” rather than narrowly targeting disinformation, acknowledging the complexity of finding effective solutions.²⁴

Acknowledged Failures and Learning

The foundation has demonstrated unusual transparency about failed initiatives, publicly analyzing projects that fell short of expectations. This approach contributes to a broader philanthropic trend toward greater accountability and learning from mistakes.

Neighborhood Improvement Initiative

The foundation’s ten-year, $20 million Neighborhood Improvement Initiative aimed to achieve broad, deep, and sustainable community change but ultimately did not fulfill participants’ hopes and expectations.²⁵ The foundation issued an in-depth analysis acknowledging shortcomings, citing resources spread too thin, failure to anticipate external changes, and differences in goals and organizational cultures between the funder and recipients.²⁵

Nuclear Security Initiative

The seven-year, $24.7 million Nuclear Security Initiative (NSI) ended in 2015 with the goal of reducing nuclear disaster risk by advancing over 100 targets, including improving U.S.-China relations and building global partnerships.²⁶ Rather than evaluating the initiative in strict success/failure terms, leadership acknowledged uncertainty about whether to continue, leading to disappointment among staff, grantees, and co-funders.²⁶

Progress occurred in unanticipated areas, but bold goals went unmet due to external events including cooling U.S.-China relations and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear incident.²⁶ The initiative was evaluated by ORS Impact, with lessons emphasizing nuanced evaluation beyond binary outcomes, careful goal-setting, and thoughtful exit strategies for time-bound investments.²⁶

Comprehensive Community Initiatives Program

This multi-year effort failed to achieve intended results, with the foundation framing responsibility as shared between the foundation and its grantees.²⁷ The acknowledgment formed part of a broader trend among foundations toward greater disclosure of failures, driven by new leadership prioritizing accountability over reputation management.²⁵

Controversies and Criticisms

Funding Organizations with Right-Wing Ties

The foundation has faced criticism for donating $1,486,000 to American Compass since 2020, comprising more than one-third of American Compass’s total public support, including $475,000 in early 2024.⁷ American Compass contributed to Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation-led initiative that critics characterize as advancing a “hard-right, authoritarian agenda” including anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, Justice Department crackdowns on critics, and deploying troops against domestic protesters.⁶⁷

Critics argue this funding contradicts the foundation’s progressive reputation in areas like women’s rights, environmental reform, and support for National Public Radio.⁶⁷ Marshall Steinbaum, an economist at the University of Utah, described the foundation’s approach as funding “both sides” to create an appearance of dialogue, while American Compass maintains alignment with Trump administration figures including Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, undermining claims of sponsoring genuine anti-Trump coalitions.⁶

Abortion and Reproductive Rights Funding

Between 2000 and 2023, the foundation granted over $100 million to Planned Parenthood, making it the organization’s second-largest private benefactor as of 2017 (after the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation).¹⁴ Since 1995, the foundation has given over $6 million to Catholics for Choice, described by critics as a radical organization opposing Catholic Church authority on abortion and contraception, supporting late-term abortions, and engaging in antagonistic publicity against the Church.¹⁴

A 1978 grant of $90,000 to Planned Parenthood drew criticism when Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton that same year announced an aggressive posture against pro-life “enemies,” which critics argued contradicted the foundation’s stated embrace of collaboration and diversity.¹⁴ Conservative critics characterize these grants as supporting “special interest” and “single-value” advocacy groups while the foundation simultaneously claims to fund “objectivity, collaboration, and non-partisan solutions.”¹⁴

Ideological Consistency Questions

The foundation has been labeled by critics as a “major institutional funder of anti-capitalist and socially liberal causes.”²⁸ In 2019, the foundation pledged millions to organizations re-examining free market policies and critiquing major technology companies like Facebook and Amazon, in coordination with funding from organizations associated with George Soros and Pierre Omidyar.¹⁵

From 2020 to 2023, the foundation granted $1,675,000 to the Action Center on Race and Economy Institute, described as a left-leaning group providing “anti-corporate analysis with an explicitly racial lens.”¹⁴ Critics note tensions between these grants and the foundation’s stated commitment to nonpartisan approaches and diverse perspectives.¹⁴

Open Education and Academic Influence

While the foundation’s commitment to open educational resources has been widely praised, some critics raise concerns about donor influence on academic institutions. Paul Brest, the foundation’s former president, previously praised law-and-economics donors during his tenure as Stanford Law School dean, leading to implicit critiques about the extent to which philanthropic funding shapes academic priorities and faculty composition.²⁹

Key Uncertainties

Several important questions remain about the foundation’s strategy and impact:

AI Safety Positioning: The foundation’s focus on AI cybersecurity rather than AI alignment or existential risk represents a strategic choice, but it remains unclear whether this reflects considered evaluation of different AI risk types or organizational path dependency. The foundation has not publicly articulated a theory of change for AI risks comparable to its detailed frameworks for other program areas.

Nonpartisanship Implementation: The foundation describes itself as nonpartisan while simultaneously facing criticism from both progressive voices (for funding American Compass) and conservative critics (for supporting Planned Parenthood and progressive causes). How the foundation defines “nonpartisan” in practice—whether it means ideological balance, issue-specific neutrality, or another framework—lacks clear public articulation.

Impact Measurement: While the foundation pioneered theory of change approaches in philanthropy, concrete evidence about the effectiveness of its major program areas remains limited. The foundation’s transparency about failures like the Neighborhood Improvement Initiative is commendable, but systematic evaluation results for successful programs are less readily available in public documentation.

Strategic Coherence: The breadth of the foundation’s program areas—from performing arts to nuclear security to climate change—raises questions about strategic focus. Whether this diversity reflects intentional portfolio theory, founder intentions, or organizational path dependency remains unclear from public sources.

Succession Planning: Following Larry Kramer’s departure in December 2023, the foundation’s leadership transition process and strategic direction under new leadership have not been extensively documented in available sources.¹⁵