2013 Fall Conference for Community Foundations

Foundations 2.0

council-webteam — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:25:51 +0000

Foundations 2.0 council-webteam Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 12:25 pm

Blog

Foundations 2.0

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 12:25 pm

Ryan Ginard

Having recently transitioned from the world of politics to that of ‘foundationland,’ I was excited to attend my first CoF Conference and help reaffirm in my own mind how foundations can play a more dynamic role in their local communities through a modernization process of what I have been commonly referring to around the offices of The San Diego Foundation as Foundations 2.0.

I note the term modernization because on the back of 100 years of successes, it is important to understand the challenges of an ever-changing civic ecosystem if we are to continue being the premier philanthropic torch bearers for another century.

We should be excited that much of this change is being fuelled by technological advances as this will increase the capacity of foundations to connect with their constituency across a range of different mediums. Being able to share your stories, build an emotional connection between donors and initiatives via social media and capitalizing on ever increasing online giving trends is an opportunity that should be unequivocally embraced on a grand scale.

A number of presenters throughout the conference encouraged calculated risk taking as a strategy to take advantage of the opportunities now available. There is no doubt that an entrepreneurial approach from community foundations might in fact be the keys to unlocking civic engagement and participation and helping repair the ever growing disconnect between government and the general public.

Much of the potential for growth also centers on the embracement of regional diversity that was brilliantly articulated by Manuel Pastor in his Trends & Realities plenary. It is important that foundations reflect the communities they represent if they are to be successful and with new trends in giving circles as impactful giving mechanisms, now is the time to get out from behind the desk and into the field.

From a personal standpoint, my a-ha moment was when Gabriel Kasper highlighted in his day 2 speech that the community foundations ‘model’ was not in fact broken because ultimately there was no model in the first place. This revelation confirmed to me that all approaches to growing stronger communities are in fact the right approaches. We learn, we respond and through that process will ultimately be impactful.

I look forward to continuing this conversation with all the new contacts I had the pleasure of making during the conference and tip my hat to all those driving innovative approaches to connect with their communities and facilitate positive change.

Ryan Ginard is manager of charitable giving at The San Diego Foundation.

Interested in the topic?

Continue the conversation with your peers

Go to the Philanthropy Exchange

Related Events

Related Resources

Complete (Social) Capital

council-webteam — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:19:13 +0000

Complete (Social) Capital council-webteam Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:19 am

Blog

Complete (Social) Capital

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:19 am

Curtis Ogden

This article was originally published on the Interaction Institute Blog.

Last week I represented IISC as a presenter/facilitator in a “deep dive” session at the Council on Foundations Conference for Community Foundations. The title of the session was “Complete Capital” and was inspired by an SSIR article by the same title written by Antony Bugg-Levine of the Nonprofit Finance Fund (NFF). Briefly, complete capital is a framework to help funders and other investors develop a fuller picture of the assets required to address complex social challenges: financial, intellectual, human, and social.

After presentations by Alison Gold of Living Cities (intellectual capital), Lisa Spinali (human capital) and Jessica LaBarbera of NFF (financial capital), and in the light of a couple of helpful case studies presented by Alison and Jessica, I offered a view of social capital that is more complex than what appears in the SSIR article. Why make it more complex? Because as much as there is talk about it, we still confront challenges when it comes to getting people to fully invest in ways that maximize social capital. And because in our experience there is so much more to the conversation, especially in the context of social change work, that goes beyond simple mention of collaboration and partnerships.

So I presented a more detailed picture by illustrating what would happen if we send the relatively narrowly defined concept of social capital through the “IISC prism” of collaborative capability building. This prism is composed of facets representing the “lenses” we bring to our collaborative capacity building work: networks, power/equity/inclusion, and love as a force for social transformation. The question guiding my brief presentation: As the light is refracted, what do we see as more nuanced, potentially overlooked, and critically valuable social assets that both support and constitute the work of social change?

First a bit more about our lenses:

Collaboration - This is not really a lens, but the foundation of the prism and our practice at IISC these past 21 years and embodied in everything we do with respect to training, facilitation, and consulting. We strive to help people be skillfully better together to achieve progressive social change.
Networks - Over the past decade in particular, we have come to believe that the unit of action for social change is the network not the organization. Working through networks invites us to build relationships and trust across boundaries, understand existing patterns of connection and what these facilitate in terms of outcomes and possibilities, and create fluid boundaries for engagement and space for emergent thinking and action.
Power/Equity/Inclusion - In our work, we strive to ensure that individuals and groups who are most affected or marginalized are meaningfully engaged in decisions that affect their lives. We are dedicated to exposing and challenging systems and processes that produce inequitable opportunities and outcomes. We also strive to build the powerof those on the margins – their capacity to bring about positive change – so that new ways of working and living that model justice can emerge.
Love as a Force for Social Transformation - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s notion of creating a just and democratic society through “beloved community” is also integral to our work. While love can be difficult to define or talk about, we know that the work of equity and justice is advanced when it’s done in the context of a certain quality of intention, interaction, and authentic relationship. For this reason, we actively move beyond purely transactional modalities and bring into our work a set of practices that support deeper reflection, awareness, and human connection.

With these in mind, if we follow the “beam” of social capital through the prism composed of these lenses, we might see it refracted into some of the following social assets, particularly with respect to our efforts to cultivate collaboration and networked ways of seeing and doing:

And when we look at some of the assets that manifest through the lens of dedicated work around power, equity, and inclusion:

Lastly, when we hold up the lens and practice of cultivating love as a force for social transformation, we might see some of the following assets:

Initial reaction in the conference session seemed to be very positive, inspiring conversation about the need and desire to focus more squarely on racial inequities and privilege in our institutions and communities, pay attention to some of the “squishier” yet very critical aspects of social capital as seen through the lens of love, and a desire to keep the conversation going, in networked fashion!

To be clear, this breakdown of social capital is not meant to be exhaustive and is very much a work in progress. That said, in our experience at IISC, these are some of the critical assets necessary not only for supporting work towards, but also constituting, social change. We also recognize that there is dynamic interplay and reinforcement that occurs across these lenses, such that the assets enhance one another, often significantly, and removing one lens diminishes overall value, often significantly.

Our hope is that our lenses will bring greater validation for, interest in, and commitment to cultivating more robust social capital for just and thriving communities. How we go about doing this effectively is our ongoing question and work at IISC and is addressed in reflections on our blog as well as in our trainings and consulting engagements. And we are interested in knowing about others’ challenges and successes around cultivating more complete social capital. We look forward to hearing your stories and reactions.

Curtis Ogden is a senior associate at the Interaction Institute for Social Change.

Interested in the topic?

Continue the conversation with your peers

Go to the Philanthropy Exchange

Related Events

Related Resources

We Are Brand New

council-webteam — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:14:45 +0000

We Are Brand New council-webteam Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:14 am

Blog

We Are Brand New

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:14 am

Kari Jackson

Throughout the fall conference, I had been prefacing every comment or question, every new introduction, with “I’m brand new, only six weeks in as a program officer.” I heard many others, too, more than I expected, who are only a few months, or, in several cases, a few days into the incredible (and exciting and overwhelming) world of community foundations. The plenaries, the sessions, and especially the colleagues at our tables from all across the country were our education this week.

I started saying “I’m brand new” to mean “I don’t know anything yet,” but perhaps instead of apologizing for my lack of direct experience in a community foundation, I should have used “I’m brand new” to mean “I believe anything is possible.” I thought I would leave the conference with a better understanding of the rules of community foundations, the way things have worked and should work for grantmaking and community engagement and donor relations (and I have), but I also can’t stop thinking about what could be. As Gabriel Pastor brilliantly stated at Tuesday morning’s plenary on “What’s Next for Community Philanthropy,” there is no business model for community foundations. There is only what we have made it, and what we, as individual community foundations working in our unique communities, continue to make it as we face new issues, new challenges, and new opportunities.

The world is in constant transformation. We are in constant transformation. And it’s the dozens of us who are new to the field that need to temper meeting the mold and expectations of our roles with the fearlessness to bring new ideas to the table and expand what it means to be the foundation of a community. We need to continue challenging orthodoxies such as “the community comes to us, not vice versa” and “money is our most important asset” as we return home because, well, aren’t people the core of our work? Aren’t people, both us as staff and the community—the citizens—we serve, the reason the important work gets done?

On the precipice of the centennial of community foundations next year, we all can be brand new. Every day is an opportunity for fearlessness, for redefining our roles in the communities we love.

PS The community I love is Hutchinson, Kansas, where I work with the Hutchinson Community Foundation (hutchcf.org). Follow us on Facebook or Twitter at@hutchcf.

Interested in the topic?

Continue the conversation with your peers

Go to the Philanthropy Exchange

Related Events

Related Resources

Applicant’s Bill of Rights

council-webteam — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:12:55 +0000

Applicant’s Bill of Rights council-webteam Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:12 am

Blog

Applicant’s Bill of Rights

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:12 am

Ashley Harper

The Center for Effective Philanthropy recently released a report titled Working Well With Grantees, and as any program officer might expect, the importance of the relationships that nonprofit applicants and grantees have with program officers is crucial to their perception of the foundation. Not surprisingly, negative experiences like those chronicled in the report can have real consequences for both the foundation and the nonprofit.

In Tuesday’s workshop on the topic, in which the break-out discussions on declining applications, post-grant assistance and funder-grantee relationships were positively dubbed by a number of my co-participants as “group therapy,” I started to think about why certain grantees interviewed by CEP would have cause to make comments about site visits turning to “interrogations,” or to describe communications from program staff as “irresponsible,” “snippy,” and down-right “rude.” Is this the kind of communication funders would expect from nonprofits? Are relationships based on the dynamics of (perceived) power and pompousness getting funders results or advancing the work of the nonprofits they fund? Why does it seem like funders too often forget that the money they grant to nonprofits is – at least in the case of community foundations – not their own, but entrusted to them by others for the betterment of their community?

As many of us pointed out in the session, our program departments often have little capacity; our “caseloads” are too big, and our time to tend to everyone is too short. Since this is very often true, I propose funders craft a general set of guidelines to keep in mind when dealing with nonprofits, whether as potential applicants, declined applicants or grantees. It could be called, The Applicants’ Bill of Rights, and include such rights as the right to:

1.Timely responses from staff when making inquiries about grant funding.
2.Notification of changes in program staff responsible for their grant or application.
3.Transparency in criteria in plain language.
4.Opportunities to talk to program staff about questions and concerns regarding applications, reporting and other grant-related issues.
5.Voice concerns to program staff supervisors when they feel their needs are being overlooked.
6.Give honest feedback on the grant application processes without fear of being penalized for their honesty.
7.Freedom from unrealistic reporting expectations and timelines.
8.Constructive feedback on applications when at all possible.
9.Notification that applications, reports and other communications have been received and a general what they can expect next.
10.Respectful communication from funders, whether in person or otherwise.

I could go on, and in truth, I hate to think of the instances where I have treated applicants with anything less than kindness and appreciation for the work they are trying to do. Wouldn’t it be a nice change of pace for a nonprofit to feel empowered and appreciated instead of apologetic and fearful when approaching funders?

What might you include in an applicants’ bill of rights? I bet if you ask nonprofits for suggestions, they’ll be more than happy to tell you.

Ashley Harper is Director of Grants and Initiatives at the Community Foundation of Greater Memphis.

Interested in the topic?

Continue the conversation with your peers

Go to the Philanthropy Exchange

Related Events

Related Resources

Public-Private Partnership: Difficult but Essential to Serving Veterans

council-webteam — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:11:33 +0000

Public-Private Partnership: Difficult but Essential to Serving Veterans council-webteam Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:11 am

Blog

Public-Private Partnership: Difficult but Essential to Serving Veterans

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:11 am

Lara Kalwinski

Government officials, philanthropists, and foundation staff often discuss the importance of providing services to our veterans and their families. However, we don’t often link the importance of those services to protecting the all voluntary military force. Today’s working lunch emphasized the importance of supporting our volunteers and then did a deeper dive on exactly how we do that through public-private partnership.

The McCormick Foundation shared their experience partnering with Major League Baseball Charities on the Welcome Back Veterans program. The program connects returning veterans to services, especially PTSD treatment.

The San Diego Grantmakers Association recognized that their role in veterans support was to be a neutral convener that brings people together to do stuff better and then to share what they learned so that the community can keep improving their work.

The Lincoln Community Foundation shared how a 2010 Council on Foundations conference speaker’s call to action to reach out to veterans informed the work they are presenting on at this year’s conference. They reminded us that community foundations must know who their veterans are before we can serve them.

The Philanthropy Roundtable’s Thomas Meyer reminded us that veterans are assets to our communities and that when we connect with them to utilize their knowledge and talents, we strengthen our community.

Sharing our work led to honest group discussion regarding what public-private partners need to know about each other to work together toward common goals.

Col. James Isenhower III, Director, Warrior and Family Support Office reassured community foundations that the military recognizes public-private partnership is an effective way to serve members of the military who are transitioning into civilian life. He shared examples of successful partnerships and recognized the challenges of adapting public and private sector systems to create collaborative programs. Col. Isenhower announced a White Paper reflecting his comments and the Warrior and Family Support Office’s commitment to public-private partnership.

With honest dialogue and commitment among our public-private partners to question and improve our systems for working together, the session ended on a hopeful note that public-private partnership will get easier and demonstrate greater impact if we all commit to celebrating successes and working through challenges together. The Council will continue to support the work of our members by creating an online Community of Practice for Veterans Philanthropy.

Lara Kalwinski is Policy & Strategy Associate, Director of National Standards at the Council on Foundations.

Interested in the topic?

Continue the conversation with your peers

Go to the Philanthropy Exchange

Related Events

Related Resources

The Shop Around the Corner

council-webteam — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:10:26 +0000

The Shop Around the Corner council-webteam Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:10 am

Blog

The Shop Around the Corner

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:10 am

Chris Cardona

I attended the “What is place-based philanthropy?” site visit, and it got me thinking about the role of private business in community foundation projects. There are fruitful relationships and productive roles we could do more to develop, and San Diego has some interesting models.

We visited “urban village” development projects run by Price Charities (in City Heights) and by the Jacobs Foundation (in Market Creek). These are unusual roles for foundations to play; they’re acting as real estate developers, and their offices are located in the neighborhoods they’re rebuilding. They engage residents to design the urban spaces, including retail, services, and community centers. And they work with those vendors to decide who will be located where.

In City Heights, Price pursued a “compass” strategy, starting with a retail plaza hub and developing housing in targeted areas north, south, east, and west of the hub. The hope was that for-profit developers would “fill in” the space between the compass points and the hub. But response so far has been slow, because Price is looking for developers to be engaged at least somewhat in the social mission of the work, and many developers want to be absentee landlords and not take a hands-on role. Overcoming that disconnect will be a challenge as the project evolves.

In the Village at Market Creek, Jacobs created a retail plaza. They asked residents what they wanted. Residents observed there had not been a new grocery store in the neighborhood since the fifties. Jacobs bid out to grocery chains like Ralph’s, with little initial response. Finally, a lesser-known national chain called Food 4 Less stepped up. It’s now the most successful location of that chain in the region.

I came away wanting to know more about the “program officer equivalent” in other sectors - who within companies decides the siting of retail locations? Bank loan officers make similar decisions at a smaller scale, evaluating opportunities and rendering judgments about resources people want. Are these people on the radar screens of community foundations? Shouldn’t they be fundamental partners in community development projects.

Such engagement can and should involve residents, and the results can be surprising for those of us steeped in nonprofit culture. In the Village at Market Creek, the developers from Jacobs set a goal of one-third local businesses in the retail plaza. They thought a local coffee chain could be a good option, with more affordable prices. Respondents said “nope, we want Starbucks like people downtown have.” Aspiration is an important part of community development, and a sense of fairness - “we want what everyone wants.” Familiar retail brand names can powerfully symbolize these ambitions. In both communities, Walmart has been a controversial potential presence for similar reasons. And that Starbucks location? It’s thriving.

It’s worth questioning our assumptions about the kinds of value different types of private businesses provide, and how they might be partners in community development.

How do you partner with private business in your community foundation? What new approaches have you been trying or might you try?

Join in the conversation by commenting below, or by tweeting @COF_ #COF13.

Chris Cardona is Director of Philanthropy for TCC Group.

Interested in the topic?

Continue the conversation with your peers

Go to the Philanthropy Exchange

Related Events

Related Resources

Community Foundations Hall of Fame Session: Outstanding and Replicable Success Stories

council-webteam — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:09:10 +0000

Community Foundations Hall of Fame Session: Outstanding and Replicable Success Stories council-webteam Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:09 am

Blog

Community Foundations Hall of Fame Session: Outstanding and Replicable Success Stories

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:09 am

Lara Kalwinski

A packed room came to hear how community foundations are successfully listening and responding to their communities. The work we heard about was innovative, sometimes controversial, and completely inspiring.

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) facilitated conversation about the work of 12 community foundations from across the country. The community foundations’ were highlighted for their outstanding work that can be replicated by their colleagues nationwide.

We understand some conference attendees were unable to hear the session. Here are brief descriptions of the projects based on the press release from NCRP, community foundation websites, and the information shared at the session:

Foundation for Louisiana: President and CEO Flozell Daniels shared his foundation’s work on Investing in Citizen Engagement. The Foundation believes that residents play a critical role in planning the future of our neighborhoods, towns, and cities. They offer citizen guides on land use and urban design as well as hosting sessions to share how to activate the community and create a community agenda based on neighborhood dialogue.

California Community Foundation: President and CEO Antonia Hernandez shared that LA has immigrants representing every single country in the world. Therefore, regardless of where each community member is from, the integration of immigrants is, a critical issue for L.A. CCF advocates for immigrant integration through sustained community engagement and collaboration. CCF’s success includes a multi-sector 35-member Council on Immigration Integration, grants to community-based organization that develop leadership skills among immigrant resident, and research to provide facts that help set the context and framework for their work.

Marin Community Foundation: In mixed income communities, sometimes it is difficult for community members to identify and understand the issues their neighbors face. Marin Community Foundation recognized that the community needed facts on the issues their neighbors were facing so that the community foundation could create opportunities to dialogue about those issues. They commissioned research and reported the findings back to the community. As a result of sharing facts, the community has better conversation about how to meet the needs of their neighbors and the community foundation has better information on how to utilize grant dollars to meet community needs.

The Cleveland Foundation: Cleveland Foundation is proud to be the largest sponsor of the Gay Games. The Games is the largest international sports and culture festival in the world open to all participants. Involvement provides us the community foundation to express our strong support for social justice and equality for the LGBT community. The foundation recognized the broad community support for the Games. As a result of the partnership between Cleveland Foundation and the Gay Games, an LGBT field-of-interest fund is being established at the foundation.

Greater New Orleans Foundation: The IMPACT program’s goal is to create a resilient, sustainable, vibrant, and equitable region in which individuals and families flourish and where the special character of the New Orleans region and its people is preserved, celebrated, and given means to develop. The grants combine much needed financial support for nonprofit services with learning among the community, nonprofits and foundations. This learning leads to a better understanding of who the neighborhood-known community leaders are.

Boston Foundation: The Boston Foundation led a partnership that commissioned a report on mass transportation in the City of Boston. The report aptly titled The Cost of Doing Nothing addresses the economic and social costs when municipalities don’t invest in transportation. The report agitated community conversation and focused community activism resulting in new transit stops.

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: Silicon Valley Community Foundation combines research, advocacy efforts, and grantmaking strategy to stop payday lending. The community foundation supports organizations working to pass local ordinances curtailing payday loans and raise public awareness about their dangers.

East Bay Community Foundation: East Bay Community Foundation has a public-private partnership team that provides a framework for their innovative work. EBCF connects and leverages efforts to help low-income families get a financial leg up and to help adults acquire skills and find good jobs. Recognizing the persistent economic and educational disparities in the East Bay – a local symptom of a nationwide problem — they focused on good jobs and the education that leads to them. Through locally-based research and deep partnerships with job-training and economic-development programs that get results and are respected in their community, EBCF promote pathways to economic security for East Bay residents with barriers to employment.

North Star Fund: Within 24 hours of Hurrican Sandy, it was clear that the immediate response to the storm was being handled by community-based organizations at the neighborhood level. North Star Fund established the Grassroots Hurricane Relief Fund to help the most vulnerable communities recover. The Grassroots Hurricane Relief Fund is unique in prioritizing organizations led by communities most affected by injustice.

Minnesota Community Foundation: GiveMN.org helps grow charitable giving and make it more efficient by moving more of it online. GiveMN helps people connect with worthy organizations and manage their charitable giving. GiveMN also provides nonprofit organizations with free online profiles and tools to help them engage donors and tell their stories. GiveMN is a collaborative venture that was conceived and initiated by the board of Minnesota Community Foundation. It has strong partner support from foundations across the state, including The Saint Paul Foundation, the Otto Bremer Foundation, Greater Twin Cities United Way and the F. R. Bigelow Foundation.

Lara Kalwinski is Policy & Strategy Associate, Director of National Standards at the Council on Foundations

Interested in the topic?

Continue the conversation with your peers

Go to the Philanthropy Exchange

Related Events

Related Resources

It’s Only Money, Honey!

council-webteam — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:07:44 +0000

It’s Only Money, Honey! council-webteam Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:07 am

Blog

It’s Only Money, Honey!

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:07 am

Denise K. Spencer

At the “Trends and Realities” plenary, the panelists all recognized economic issues in their communities as being among those things that kept them up at night. But my biggest take-away came from Mariam Noland, President of the Community Foundation of Southeast Michigan. When she noted that “Detroit is bankrupt only in the sense that it has no money,” I was reminded that a lack of money is not a problem of the same magnitude as a lack of creativity, or passion, or culture, or caring, or initiative, or strength of character, or work-ethic. With many of these other things in place (and an amazing community foundation, of course) the money issue can be improved over time. Hope can be alive and well in any community if the bankruptcy is only financial. Thanks, Mariam, for the timely reminder!

Denise K. Spencer is president and CEO of the Community Foundation of the Lowcountry.

Interested in the topic?

Continue the conversation with your peers

Go to the Philanthropy Exchange

Related Events

Related Resources

Checklist for Community Foundations: Do You Support Policy Change?

council-webteam — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:03:37 +0000

Checklist for Community Foundations: Do You Support Policy Change?  council-webteam Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:03 am

Blog

Checklist for Community Foundations: Do You Support Policy Change? 

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:03 am

Susan Hoechstetter

This blog was originally posted on bolderadvocacy.org

Across the country, community foundations are recognizing the power of public  policy work to advance their missions. Some do so by awarding grants for advocacy activities like public education and research. Others support nonprofits to lobby. And many others engage in advocacy themselves by taking positions on issues they care about.

How many of these actions to support advocacy has your foundation taken? Tally up your score and scroll to the end for explanations.

__1. Give Grants for Lobbying. As public charities, community foundations can participate in and support lobbying. Unlike private foundations that are generally restricted from lobbying, community foundations can lobby themselves and may fund a limited amount of lobbying. Community foundations may earmark funds for lobbying; however, earmarked grants will count against the public foundation’s lobbying limit (See #3). Learn more: Community Foundations and Advocacy

__2. Remove Restrictive Language from Grant Agreements. Many foundations include unnecessarily restrictive language in grant agreement letters that prohibit their grantees from using grant funds for “any propaganda or attempt to influence legislation.” Such language is overly restrictive and may undermine the grantee’s ability to effectively and efficiently achieve its goals.

__3. Make the 501(h) Election. The 501(h) election is a straightforward way for a community foundation to measure how much it spends on lobbying itself — or on grants earmarked for lobbying. The advantage of the 501(h) election lies in the fact that it:

Sets specific dollar limits—calculated as a percentage of a community foundation’s total exempt purpose expenditures, and
Establishes clear definitions of lobbying.

As an added bonus, by electing 501(h), community foundations should then be able to take advantage of the guidance AFJ received from the IRS. For these reasons, the 501(h) election provides a clear picture of the amount a foundation may spend to influence legislation without losing its exempt status or incurring penalty taxes. Learn more: How to Use the 501(h) Election

__4. Support Election-Related Activities. Community foundations, like all public charities, are absolutely prohibited from engaging in activity that supports or opposes a candidate for public office. Community foundations may, however, support nonpartisan voter education activity (i.e., candidate education, get-out-the-vote, and voter registration activities). While private foundations have special restrictions for funding voter registration activities, these restrictions are not applicable to community foundations. Learn more: Foundation Support for Election-Related Activities

__5. Support Charitable Activities of Social Welfare Organizations and Unions. Community foundations are permitted to fund the work of nonpublic charities, including 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and unions, if it is an activity that the foundation could participate in itself. For example, a community foundation could provide a grant to a 501(c)(4) organization to engage in nonpartisan voter registration activity but could not provide a grant to the same organization to produce a partisan voter guide because the community foundation is not allowed to support or oppose candidates for office. Learn more: Supporting the Social Welfare: Giving to 501(c)(4) Organizations

__6. Fund a Variety of Advocacy Activities. At any one time, successful advocacy efforts require one or more activities. In some cases, all of the above- mentioned activities might be utilized in a far-reaching campaign. Target audiences and the avenues used for affecting change (such as the executive, judicial, or legislative branch, or the electoral process) will vary. Factors such as public opinion, state budgets, and elections also have a great impact, requiring organizations to be flexible and open to changing strategies.

__7. Engage in Advocacy as a Foundation. Finally, community foundations can engage in advocacy themselves. For example, a community foundation could build relationships with legislators or help grantees build and sustain these relationships. A foundation could convene nonprofits and decision-makers to discuss a pressing problem (e.g., a failing school system, poverty, pollution). A foundation could write an amicus brief in a lawsuit or lobby on a particular piece of legislation or ballot measure. Learn more: Public Foundations Can Lobby

How did your foundation score?
1-2: You’ve taken some important steps toward impact though advocacy. Keep moving!
3-4: You’re an advocacy booster.
5-7: Your foundation may well be a changemaker in your community!

Explore the role of community foundations and advocacy during these sessions at the 2013 Fall Conference for Community Foundations:
The Power of Advocacy… Tuesday 1030-12
State of the States… Tuesday 1-2:30

Learn more about how your foundation can make an impact through policy work. Download or order a copy of Bolder Advocacy’s handbook: Investing in Change

Susan Hoechstetter is a Senior Advisor, Foundation Advocacy & Evaluation, with the Alliance for Justice’s Bolder Advocacy initiative.

Public Policy

Interested in the topic?

Continue the conversation with your peers

Go to the Philanthropy Exchange

Related Events

Related Resources

California’s Shift is a Wake Up Call for Philanthropy

council-webteam — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:00:28 +0000

California’s Shift is a Wake Up Call for Philanthropy council-webteam Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:00 am

Blog

California’s Shift is a Wake Up Call for Philanthropy

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - 10:00 am

Kelly Brown

While folks here in California are no strangers to the earth moving beneath their feet, they are currently witnessing a seismic shift of another kind. Earlier this year, for the first time, the population of Latinos in California equaled the number of whites. And by early 2014, California will likely become the second state in which Latinos are the largest racial or ethnic group (New Mexico being the first).

As the population shifts, so too must the mindset and make-up of foundations and philanthropic organizations. A failure to do so risks alienating a new generation of leaders and donors who are coming of age in this new demographic landscape, but do not see it reflected in the philanthropic community.

According to the State of the Work report authored by the D5 Coalition, which seeks to grow diversity, equity, and inclusion in philanthropy, only 4 percent of foundations have a Latino president or CEO, while only 7 percent of foundation boards/trustees are Latino. This underrepresentation could help explain why, according to the Foundation Center, U.S. foundation giving designated to benefit Latinos comprised only 1 percent of total foundation funding in the first decade of this century, despite the growth of the Latino population.

The problem of this underrepresentation could create a chasm between philanthropic organizations and the next generation of leaders with the energy and ideas required to tackle the challenges we face. If an organization’s boardroom lacks inclusiveness and diversity, the emerging leaders and donors may look for other channels through which to address challenges.

This disconnect comes at a critical time for the Latino community. The national Latino unemployment rate stands at 9.4 percent—two full percentage points higher than the national rate. And while the Pew Research Center has found that the college enrollment rate of Latino high school graduates is at a record high, Latinos are less likely to be enrolled in a 4-year institution, enrolled in college full-time or complete a bachelor’s degree.

The example of the growing Latino community is just one example of our shifting demographics. I am encouraged by the fact that we do have multi-generational leaders focused on keeping philanthropy ahead of the game. Their insights into how important diversity, equity, and inclusion are to this next generation of leaders are an essential part of the conversation we will have during the Council on Foundation’s Fall Conference in San Diego. California’s seismic demographic shift provides the perfect backdrop against which to have this discussion.

To stay ahead of these trends, we need to better commit to the advancement of diversity, equity, and inclusion. By bringing new voices and expertise to the table, philanthropy is more effective at advancing the common good, more reflective of the current landscape and more relevant to the next generation of leaders and donors working to promote the common good.

Kelly Brown is the Director of the D5 Coalition.

Interested in the topic?

Continue the conversation with your peers

Go to the Philanthropy Exchange