Prospective students tour Georgetown University’s campus in Washington in 2013. AP Photo/Jacquelyn MartinTodd L. Ely, University of Colorado DenverWith the Trump administration seeking to cut federal funding for colleges and universities, you might be wondering whether the endowments of these institutions of higher education might be able to fill those gaps. Todd L. Ely, a professor of public administration at the University of Colorado Denver, explains what endowments are and the constraints placed on them.
What’s an endowment?
Endowments are pools of financial investments that belong to a nonprofit. These assets produce a revenue stream, typically from dividends, interest and realized capital gains. The funds endowments hold usually originate as charitable donations made to support an institution’s mission. In most cases with higher education endowments, this wealth, which helps buoy a nonprofit’s budget, is supposed to last forever. Contributions to endowments are tax-deductible for donors who itemize their tax returns. Once these funds are invested, they grow generally tax-free. But beginning in 2018, the federal government imposed a 1.4% excise tax on dozens of higher education institutions with relatively large endowments. Few colleges or universities have a single endowment fund. That’s because the donors who provide gifts large and small to the school over the years direct their donations to different funds reserved for specific purposes. Harvard University’s endowment, worth $53.2 billion at the end of its 2024 fiscal year, for example, consists of roughly 14,600 distinct funds. All told, money distributed from endowments covered more than 15%, on average, of college and university operating expenses in 2024. Some of America’s institutions of higher education, however, lean much more heavily than that on their endowments to pay their bills.People pose for photos in front of the iconic Tommy Trojan statue on the campus of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles in 2019.AP Photo/Reed Saxon
How do endowments influence higher education?
Endowments can serve multiple purposes. In 2024, nearly half of all higher education spending paid for with endowment revenue funded scholarships and other kinds of aid for students, while almost 18% supported academic programs. Just under 11% paid for professors’ compensation, and almost 7% helped pay for running and maintaining campus facilities. More broadly, endowments can help shield schools from financial hardships and maintain their long-term reputations. When they’re set up to carry on in perpetuity, endowments must benefit both current and future generations. So when donors give to an endowment, they are arguably investing in the long-term viability of the institution. This long-term focus suggests that endowments aren’t just rainy-day funds or financial reserves.
Why can’t endowment funds be spent freely?
At the end of the 2023 fiscal year, U.S. higher education endowments held a total of more than $907 billion. That is a lot of money, but it’s still less than the combined wealth of America’s five richest people. Like individual wealth, endowment assets are heavily concentrated in the U.S. Many colleges and universities have small or no endowments. Nearly 60% of them total less than $50 million. The top 25, which includes several public universities in states such as Michigan and Texas, account for more than half of all endowment assets. And even when schools have large endowments, the individual funds that compose them are bound by a wide array of restrictions. Some of that money can be spent however the school would like. Other funds are dedicated to a clearly defined purpose. When endowment funds are restricted, the school gets little discretion in how to spend them. At Harvard, for example, there’s a Hollis Professorship of Divinity at Harvard University. It was established in 1721 through a gift from a London merchant. Based on the terms of that long-ago donation, the earnings and growth of the donated funds continue to honor the donor’s intent by supporting the position, regardless of what the university needs. Alternatively, endowments may receive donations that are temporarily restricted. Known as “term” endowments, the assets they hold can be used once donor-imposed conditions are fulfilled. Institutions frequently designate some of their unrestricted funds as “quasi” endowments, usually earmarked for specific strategic purposes. This board-designated quasi-endowment does not carry legal restrictions and can be spent more freely. About 40% of higher education endowment assets are subject to permanent restrictions, 30% are temporarily restricted, and 29% are reserved for quasi-endowment use.People walk past the Ray and Maria Stata Center on the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2019.AP Photo/Steven Senne
How are decisions over endowment funds made?
The decision-making authority over endowments typically rests with a college or university’s governing board. Those boards establish endowment payout policies that guide how much of the endowment and its earnings can be spent each year, while attempting to preserve the purchasing power of the investments over the long term. The policies take expectations regarding investment earnings and inflation into account, while smoothing annual payouts by using a percentage of the value of the endowment over multiple years as opposed to a single point in time. This payout tends to amount to about 5% of all assets. That share averaged 4.8% in 2024. U.S. institutions of higher education spent nearly $35.5 billion derived from their endowments in the 2023 fiscal year. Colleges and universities that depend more heavily on their endowment funds to cover their current obligations may choose to invest more conservatively. In recent years, many higher education endowments have obtained more complex investments, such as private equity, real assets and stakes in hedge funds. Endowments of nonprofit colleges and universities are also governed in most states by a state law known as the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act. This law encourages cautious investments and restrained spending. These restrictions mean that annual payouts are generally modest. That leaves endowments ill-equipped to respond to abrupt and large shifts in their funding needs. The John F. Kennedy School of Government, commonly referred to as Harvard Kennedy School, is a member of The Conversation U.S.Todd L. Ely, Associate Professor of Public Administration; Director, Center for Local Government, University of Colorado Denver This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
DoorDash Driver Arrested After Claiming Sexual Assault: What Really Happened?
A DoorDash driver who claimed she was sexually assaulted during a delivery is now facing felony charges after police say her viral video showed an unconscious, partially nude customer without consent. Here’s what investigators found and why the case is sparking national debate.
DoorDash delivery driver involved in a viral video controversy after claiming sexual assault; police say no assault occurred, and the driver now faces felony charges.
DoorDash Driver Arrested After Claiming Sexual Assault: What Really Happened?
A Viral Accusation Turns Into a Criminal Case
A routine food drop-off turned into a national controversy this month after a DoorDash delivery driver claimed she was sexually assaulted during a delivery — only to later be arrested herself following a police investigation. The incident, which quickly spread across TikTok and other platforms, has generated fierce debate over privacy, personal safety, and the power of viral video culture.
The driver, identified as Livie Rose Henderson, posted a video on social media in mid-October claiming that when she arrived at a customer’s home in Oswego, New York, she found the front door open and discovered a man “half-naked and unconscious” on his couch. She publicly described the moment as a sexual assault, saying she felt endangered and traumatized.
Her posts went viral almost immediately, drawing attention from millions of viewers and sparking outrage over the safety risks faced by gig workers — particularly women — who make deliveries to unfamiliar homes.
But the narrative took a dramatic turn.
Police: No Sexual Assault Occurred
According to the Oswego Police Department, an investigation found no evidence that Henderson was sexually assaulted. Instead, authorities say that she:
Entered the home without consent
Recorded the unconscious customer, who was partially nude
Posted the footage online, identifying him
Made claims police say were “false and misleading”
Investigators concluded the man was intoxicated and unconscious, not acting with intent or awareness. As a result, Henderson was arrested and charged with:
Second-degree unlawful surveillance (felony)
First-degree dissemination of unlawful surveillance images (felony)
Police emphasized that recording a person who is nude or partially nude inside their home — regardless of context — constitutes a violation of New York’s surveillance and privacy laws if done without permission.
DoorDash Drops the Driver
Henderson also claimed that DoorDash deactivated her account, something she described as retaliation for “exposing her assaulter.” But following her arrest, DoorDash stated that recording customers inside their homes violates company policy and local laws.
DoorDash said it cooperated with investigators but declined to comment further on personnel matters.
A Complicated Public Reaction
Social media reaction has been sharply divided:
Advertisement
Sympathy for the driver
Many viewers initially supported Henderson, arguing that gig workers often deal with unsafe conditions and should not be forced to decide between finishing a delivery or backing away from a potentially threatening situation.
Backlash over privacy violations
Others argue that Henderson crossed legal and ethical boundaries by:
Entering a private residence
Recording a vulnerable, unconscious person
Posting it publicly
Accusing the individual of a crime without evidence
These actions, critics say, show the dangerous consequences of rushing to social media before police or professional investigators evaluate the facts.
The Larger Issue: Safety vs. Responsibility
This case highlights a broader tension in the era of app-based work and viral content:
Gig workers do indeed face unpredictable and sometimes unsafe situations.
Customers have a right to privacy in their homes.
Social media, meanwhile, rewards the fastest and most dramatic version of a story — even before the truth is known.
As the criminal process continues, Henderson’s case may set a new precedent for how privacy laws interact with the realities of delivery work and the instant visibility of online platforms.
Focuses on the legal perspective, privacy violations, and the potential consequences of posting sensitive content online.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
How China cleaned up its air pollution – and what that meant for the climate
How China cleaned up its air pollution: Beijing’s air quality went from hazardous to good while Delhi and Lahore still struggle. Discover how China dramatically reduced pollution since 2013—and why cleaner air may have unintended consequences for global warming and climate change.
Delhi: 442. Lahore: 334. Beijing: 16. These are the levels of PM 2.5, one of the principle measures for air pollution, on November 19. As Pakistanis and Indians struggle with hazardous air quality, in Beijing – a city once notorious for its smog – the air quality is currently rated as good. Ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the Chinese government was so concerned about pollution that it introduced temporary restrictions on cars, shut down factories and stopped work on some construction sites. The measures worked and one study later found that levels of air pollution were down 30% during the period when the temporary Olympic restrictions were in place. It would take a few more years before the Chinese government implemented a clean air action plan in 2013. Since then, China has achieved a dramatic improvement in its air quality. In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Laura Wilcox, a professor at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading in the UK, to understand how China managed to clean up its air pollution. But Wilcox’s recent research uncovered some unintended consequences from this cleaner air for the global climate: the pollution was actually helping to cool the atmosphere and by taking it away, it may have accelerated global warming. Wilcox explains:
What we’re seeing is a removing of cooling that’s revealing warming that’s already there. So the air pollution isn’t the cause of the warming. It’s just letting us see stuff that we’ve already done.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
The Hong Kong high-rise fire shows how difficult it is to evacuate in an emergency
Hong Kong High-Rise Fire: The deadly Hong Kong fire exposes critical challenges in evacuating tall buildings. Learn why stair descent is slower than expected, how human behavior causes delays, and what modern safety features can save lives.
Evacuations of high-rises don’t happen every day, but occur often enough. And when they do, the consequences are almost always severe. The stakes are highest in the buildings that are full at predictable times: residential towers at night, office towers in the day. We’ve seen this in the biggest modern examples, from the World Trade Center in the United States to Grenfell Tower in the United Kingdom. The patterns repeat: once a fire takes hold, getting thousands of people safely down dozens of storeys becomes a race against time. But what actually makes evacuating a high-rise building so challenging? It isn’t just a matter of “getting people out”. It’s a collision between the physical limits of the building and the realities of human behaviour under stress.
It’s a long way down to safety
The biggest barrier is simply vertical distance. Stairwells are the only reliable escape route in most buildings. Stair descent in real evacuations is far slower than most people expect. Under controlled or drill conditions people move down at around 0.4–0.7 metres per second. But in an actual emergency, especially in high-rise fires, this can drop sharply. During 9/11, documented speeds at which survivors went down stairs were often slower than 0.3 m/s. These slow-downs accumulate dramatically over long vertical distances. Fatigue is a major factor. Prolonged walking significantly reduces the speed of descent. Surveys conducted after incidents confirm that a large majority of high-rise evacuees stop at least once. During the 2010 fire of a high-rise in Shanghai, nearly half of older survivors reported slowing down significantly. Long stairwells, landings, and the geometry of high-rise stairs all contribute to congestion, especially when flows from multiple floors merge into a single shaft. Slower movers include older adults, people with physical or mobility issues and groups evacuating together. These reduce the overall pace of descent compared with the speeds typically assumed for able-bodied individuals. This can create bottlenecks. Slow movers are especially relevant in residential buildings, where diverse occupants mean movement speeds vary widely. Visibility matters too. Experimental studies show that reduced lighting significantly slows down people going down stairs. This suggests that when smoke reduces visibility in real events, movement can slow even further as people hesitate, misjudge steps, or adjust their speed.
Human behaviour can lead to delays
Human behaviour is one of the biggest sources of delay in high-rise evacuations. People rarely act immediately when an alarm sounds. They pause, look for confirmation, check conditions, gather belongings, or coordinate with family members. These early minutes are consistently some of the costliest when evacuating from tall buildings. Studies of the World Trade Center evacuations show the more cues people saw – smoke, shaking, noise – the more they sought extra information before moving. That search for meaning adds delay. People talk to colleagues, look outside windows, phone family, or wait for an announcement. Ambiguous cues slow them even further. In residential towers, families, neighbours and friend-groups naturally try to evacuate together. Groups tend to form wider steps, or group together in shapes that reduce overall flow. But our research shows when a group moves in a “snake” formation – one behind the other – they travel faster, occupy less space, and allow others to pass more easily. These patterns matter in high-rise housing, where varied household types and mixed abilities make moving in groups the norm.
Why stairs aren’t enough
As high-rises grow taller and populations age, the old assumption that “everyone can take the stairs” simply no longer holds. A full building evacuation can take too long, and for many residents (older adults, people with mobility limitations, families evacuating together) long stair descents are sometimes impossible. This is why many countries have turned to refuge floors: fire- and smoke-protected levels built into towers as safe staging points. These can reduce bottlenecks and prevent long queues. They give people somewhere safe to rest, transfer across to a clearer stair, or wait for firefighters. Essentially, they make vertical movement more manageable in buildings where continuous descent isn’t realistic. Alongside them are evacuation elevators. These are lifts engineered to operate during a fire with pressurised shafts, protected lobbies and backup power. The most efficient evacuations use a mix of stairs and elevators, with ratios adjusted to the building height, density and demographics. The lesson is clear: high-rise evacuation cannot rely on one tool. Stairs, refuge floors and protected elevators should all be made part of ensuring vertical living is safer.Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne; Erica Kuligowski, Principal Research Fellow, School of Engineering, RMIT University, and Ruggiero Lovreglio, Professor in Digital Construction and Fire Engineering, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Todd L. Ely, Associate Professor of Public Administration; Director, Center for Local Government, University of Colorado Denver This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
