Archive for April, 2010

Notes from the Food & Community Conference

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

By Marion DeForest
Deputy Director
Washington Women’s Foundation

Hello from Chandler, AZ, where the tenth annual Food & Community Conference is taking place, sponsored by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. I feel very fortunate to be here among the Seattle/King County delegation as the eyes and ears of the funding community – I hope bring back impressions, ideas and inspiration about the efforts being undertaken around the country on the issues of food, sustainability, physical fitness, social justice. As a relative neophyte to this world, I am learning SO much and am grateful for this opportunity.

Background: The WK Kellogg Foundation is funding multi-year efforts in nine communities around the country under its ‘Food & Fitness’ strategy. The vision is for ‘vibrant communities where everyone – especially the most vulnerable children – has access to affordable, healthy, locally grown food and appropriate opportunities to be physically active and play.’ The locales participating are: Boston, Philadelphia, New York City, Holyoke, MA, Detroit, Iowa, Seattle/King County, Oakland, and the Native American T’ohono O’Odham community here near Phoenix. There are over 600 delegates from these communities and many more gathered here for the next three days.

In Seattle, the King County Food & Fitness Initiative (KCFFI) is working with over 50 partners (ranging from the Parks Department to Seattle Tilth to Feet First) to implement a Community Action Plan with three focuses: School Food & Fitness, Healthy Food Retail, and Safe Spaces to be Active, all in the Delridge and White Center communities. Their FEEST project is a signature program, which many other cities are eager to emulate. FEEST stands for Food Empowerment, Education & Sustainability Team, and youth gather every month at Youngstown Cultural Center to plan and cook a healthy meal together, and share with one another. It’s become more than just a meal – it’s a community and a movement, powered by youth. (more…)

Share on TwitterShare via email

Living History in Rural Colorado

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

By Richard Woo
CEO
The Russell Family Foundation

It’s Tuesday afternoon and the COF conference is winding down while the community site visit to rural Colorado ramps up. The next two days promise to be deeply moving and build on the conference themes of social change, social justice & social innovation.

Native Americans in Philanthropy (NAP) and Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy (AAPIP) have organized a learning and healing pilgrimage to two sites of historical significance to our respective communities.

The first is Amache, where over 10,000 Japanese Americans were imprisoned during World War II in a desolate camp of makeshift wooden barracks. The second is Sand Creek, site of the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864 where over 150 Cheyenne and Arapaho people were slaughtered by Colorado militia volunteers. Ironically, the Indians were camped at Sand Creek awaiting peace talks with the U.S. military.

This is day one and I’ve been absorbed in “living history” by talking with Bob Fuchigami, who was imprisoned at Amache as a teenager (age 12) from 1942-1945. Bob, age 79 and a retired university professor living in Denver, is active in the historical preservation of the Amache Camp.

When asked about the Amache experience, Bob shares the following recollections, which include uncanny associations with my own family history, though I am Chinese American and they were not interned:

* Bob and his family were given six days notice by the U.S. government in 1942 to evacuate their farm and home in Yuba City in Northern California. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 authorized the forced evacuation and imprisonment of Japanese Americans and Japanese nationals in 10 internment camps across rural America for purposes of national security. By coincidence, my maternal grandmother was born in Yuba City in the late 1800s.

* My dad, Bill Woo, told me that during the wartime hysteria following the Japanese bombing attack on Pearl Harbor, his family took precautionary measures by posting handmade signs in their car and farm trucks stating: “We are Chinese Americans.” There were many hands to make light work of those signs. My father was the first born son of 19 children in the San Fernando Valley near Los Angeles.

* Bob’s family were farmers and grew peaches and almonds. My dad and his brothers farmed cotton, alfalfa & safflower in Central California from the mid-1940s onward.

* In 1942 with no knowledge of their ultimate destination, the Fuchigami Family joined thousands of others at a detention center in Merced, California. Coincidentally, I was born ten years later in 1952 in Los Banos, California-30 miles from the county seat, Merced.

* From Merced, the Fuchigami Family and others were transported by rail for three days to Amache, often shut off from the light by shuttered windows to prevent them from seeing the surrounding landscape.

* Today, the tour bus, carrying more than 20 of us including Bob, crossed the same railroad tracks he traveled in 1942 destined for Amache. It is an eerie moment as Bob shares that memory with all of us.

* Settling into the barren high desert of Amache was a shock for the Fuchigami’s, having come from the relatively mild climate of Northern California. Bob recalls winter temperatures dropping to 22 degres below zero. The barracks serving as their home had dirt floors and wooden walls without insulation.

* As a 12 year old boy, Bob remembers being frightened by the armed guards, barbed wire fences and nightly intrusion of watchtower search lights.

* Bob’s mom and dad were 52 years and 60 years old respectively. If losing their farm, their house and their possessions was hard, camp life was harsher still. His mother survived a stroke in camp leaving her health compromised. Bob’s dad fell from a farm truck during camp and broke his back.

As Bob says before we head to our hotel rooms:

“The camp was not a good experience for us. I continue to do this preservation work for them (his parents). I keep asking myself: why would our government do this to us?”

Tomorrow we visit Amache and Sand Creek. While I look forward to doing so out of respect for those who came before us, I am also anxious about what emotions will be stirred by this “living history.”

Places have spiritual power because their physical presence hint at what has passed before. Places tie together events even though those events are separated by time.

That’s why it’s significant that Bob’s family farmed in Yuba City, where decades before my grandmother was born. It means something to me that Bob and I were separated by a mere 30 miles (Merced to Los Banos) and ten years of time. It’s haunting to cross the same railroad tracks where the Fuchigami Family passed 68 years before.

In the largest sense, Amache and Sand Creek are tied together by place though these events unfolded tens of decades apart. Such violations were sparked by a social dynamic that sadly transcends time and place, that is “fear of the other.”

For that reason, we are visiting these places to honor the intertwined history between indigenous peoples and Asian Pacific Islanders. Some may contend that dwelling on the past, especially such tragic events, is futile and self-defeating. In the framework of making positive change as described in Chip Heath’s book, “Switch: How to Change Things When Things Are Hard,” you might even label this TBU = True But Useless.

To the contrary, I believe this journey is indeed seeking the motivational “bright spots” that Chip Heath encourages all to do, including:

* BUILDING partnerships (NAP, AAPIP & allied funders) that fuel a common purpose to serve through philanthropy;

* SEEING tangible local community efforts to heal the wounds of history through cross-cultural education like the Koshare Indian Museum in Amache; and

* FEELING moved to take actions through our philanthropic work in the context of our communities back home that promote change, justice and innovation.

Originally published on the Philanthropy 411 blog.

Share on TwitterShare via email

From the CEO: Trends in Northwest Giving

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

Philanthropy Northwest CEO Carol Lewis gave the first public presentation of the new Trends in Northwest Giving report last week, at a Reflections on Philanthropy from Today’s Leaders event.

(Click here to view Carol’s presentation slides. Skip to the second video for the main presentation of the data.)

Introduction to Philanthropy Northwest and the Trends in Northwest Giving report:

Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.


Presentation of Trends data:

Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.


Q&A:

Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.

Thank you to our series co-sponsors: Social Venture Partners, the UW Evans School’s Nancy Bell Evans Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy and Washington Women’s Foundation.

Share on TwitterShare via email

Blogging the COF Conference

Monday, April 26th, 2010

Philanthropy Northwest members Richard Woo of The Russell Family Foundation and Aleesha Towns-Bain of the Rasmuson Foundation are on the Philanthropy 411 blog team covering the 2010 COF conference in Denver this week. You can read all the posts from the conference here.

In a post about the Pre-Conference Institute for Trustees & CEOs, Richard wrote:

“Over time I learned the value of creative disruption. I used to approach board meetings using a corporate model of efficiency. I tried to gain alignment among trustees on issues before the actual board meeting through individual phone calls with trustees. The goal was to conduct a smooth, seamless board meeting in which all decisions were actually decided beforehand. That’s not really governance, that’s theater.

Now I believe it is more important to break trustees out of alignment in those pre-meeting phone calls and encourage them to express their divergent views in the actual meeting so we can have a deeper discussion of the issues. Hopefully this generates decisions that are more durable.”

Prior to the conference, Aleesha attended the Native Philanthropy Institute, hosted by Native Americans in Philanthropy. She wrote:

“Over and over again at the Native Philanthropy Institute, Native leaders and grantmakers said we must trust Tribal and Native organizations to come up with solutions for themselves–and then accept ways of doing that may not align to typical ways of doing business for Western-based organizations. Several Native American leaders pointed out that foundation and governmental funding can come with restrictions that are designed to be helpful, but end up representing an attempt to acculturate native organizations to a Western system of working.”

Keep checking the Philanthropy 411 blog this week for more from Aleesha, Richard and the COF conference.

Share on TwitterShare via email

Critical Elements for Effective Corporate Philanthropy

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

By Carol Pawlak
Director, Philanthropy and Corporate Communications
Amgen

The benefits to organizations receiving corporate philanthropy are clear, the results tangible and measurable: better education, reducing homelessness and hunger, improved health outcomes, a stronger community, enriched arts and culture, job creation, a cleaner environment. The benefits to the corporate philanthropist are no less real, but not always as easy to define. In the current resource-strained environment, aligning corporate strategy with social responsibility goals and measuring the impact on brand is essential for a successful program.

We asked Dr. Kellie McElhaney, author of Just Good Business: The Strategic Guide to Aligning Corporate Responsibility and Brand, professor, and the faculty director of the Center for Responsible Business at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, to share her expertise on the strategy behind corporate giving. McElhaney will present the keynote at the 2010 Corporate Philanthropy Institute in Seattle on May 19.

According to McElhaney there are three critical elements to an effective corporate philanthropy program:

Develop a smart “business” strategy for philanthropy.
The key to developing a giving strategy is to “connect your efforts with your company’s overall corporate strategy, business objectives, and core competencies,” says McElhaney. “You can’t differentiate your philanthropic strategy from your corporate strategy.”

“Some people start by looking at what the community needs, but we need to turn that assumption on its head and begin with what is important to the organization; and then determine how that fits with what the community needs,” advises McElhaney. “This approach creates a strategy that can last for the long-term.” In essence: start from the inside out.

In developing a giving strategy, McElhaney says, “Identify a cause for which you have the ability and skill set to help make a difference. This increases the impact, makes for a tighter story, and feels authentic. This instills credibility and trust for brand stakeholders including, but not limited to, your employees and consumers.”

Understand why smart philanthropy can be an effective branding tool.
“A strategic, well-executed giving strategy is an important tool for reaching not just customers, but employees, suppliers, or governments in new markets, for example,” adds McElhaney. “Ask yourself, are your philanthropy practices reinforcing and differentiating your brand? It’s easy to think that this doesn’t apply to Business to Business applications, but these organizations are not off the hook. Everyone is a consumer of the brand; employees, suppliers, business partners. We are all consumers, all the time.”

Capitalize on your corporate giving programs.
“Very few organizations are doing a good job of telling their philanthropic story,” says McElhaney. “Corporate philanthropy is an opportunity to advance your strategy and communicate your brand. “

McElhaney cites the appliance manufacturer Whirlpool as an organization implementing smart philanthropy with strategic alignment of its mission. “Whirlpool found a high-fit, good strategy for its giving. They chose homelessness as a cause, and Habitat for Humanity as a partner. The connection between Habitat and Whirlpool to build homes tells a good story.”

“Even more effective is Pedigree, the pet food maker. Its philanthropic focus is pet adoption. Pedigree tells a simple story with a straightforward message in four little words: Help us help dogs. This is a highly strategic fit for the organization.” Adds McElhaney playfully, “Plus who doesn’t love dogs! The concept of a dog going into a loving home is very effective and intrinsically tied to their business objective.”

Learn more about philanthropic strategy from McElhaney at the 2010 Corporate Philanthropy Institute on May 19. Perhaps you will even find your organization’s four little words!

Carol Pawlak directs Philanthropy and Corporate Communications for the biotechnology company Amgen in Washington and serves on the Corporate Philanthropy Institute Steering Committee.

Share on TwitterShare via email

Foundations on the Hill: Still a lot to learn

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

By Carol Lewis
CEO
Philanthropy Northwest

A few years ago, Dean Zerbe, a well-known staff member for Senator Charles Grassley, resigned as lead staff for the Senate Finance Committee. A few optimistic souls in the foundation world thought Zerbe’s resignation (and newly-minted Democratic control of the Senate) would put a damper on what seemed then like the unending Congressional assault on fundamental philanthropic principles: the laws of perpetuity, charitable tax-deductions, and principles of self-government by foundations. Not quite.

Once a year, at least, Philanthropy Northwest treks to Washington, D.C., to talk with the Northwest congressional delegation about the issues we see as funders. This most recent trip made it clear that the environment on Capitol Hill is more hospitable than in previous years, but it also reminds me that persistent questions about the philanthropic sector and its tax-advantaged status remain. Even Dean Zerbe has not really gone away (see his recent article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, “Should Some Charities be more Equal than Others?”).

Thanks to Senator Max Baucus, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Philanthropy Northwest had unusual access to the Senate Finance Committee leadership and staff during its visit. This year, as in the past, we shared an informal, off-the-record dinner with the committee’s Democratic staff director Russ Sullivan, as well as his fellow staff members: Tiffany Smith, Tax Counsel for the Majority and Theresa Pattarra, Tax Counsel for the Minority. We’ve held this dinner for three years now, and it is always a remarkable evening. The conversation between public officials and private philanthropists is respectful, but also refreshingly spirited and blunt.

To put it briefly: there is a lot we have to learn from each other. As Congress struggles with a rising national debt and profound social challenges, it is inevitable that they will ask whether foundations should have the current tax advantage they enjoy. For those of us witnessing the good work of our foundations, the answer seems obvious. But these philanthropic stories are not well understood. And, of course, if foundations don’t tell their own stories, who else will?

Leaving that meeting, Mike Halligan of the Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation concluded that we cannot ignore the evolving attitudes of Congress towards our sector. While philanthropy and government share a commitment to meet urgent societal needs, our two sectors are not working together as well as we need to. Listening and learning about each other is the first step.

Others joining the dinner from the Northwest included Akhtar Badshah (pictured, above, with Senator Thune) and Andrea Taylor from Microsoft, Bart Hadder from the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust, Daniel Kemmis from the Northwest Area Foundation, Darin McKeever and Nageeb Sumar from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Jeff Clarke and Jordan Marshall from the Rasmuson Foundation (pictured, right). This intrepid team of foundation leaders, along with Jeff Jessee from the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority and Diane Kaplan from the Rasmuson Foundation, and Natalie Camacho Mendoza from the Northwest Area Foundation, spent the following day on Capitol Hill meeting with policymakers to tell just a few of our sector’s important stories.


My deepest thanks to all of those members of Congress who met personally with us or encouraged their staff to meet with us: Sen. Max Baucus (MT) (pictured, above, with delegation members); Sen. Mark Begich (AK); Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA); Sen. Mike Crapo (ID) (pictured, top, with delegation members); Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK); Sen. Patty Murray (WA); Sen. John Tester (MT) (pictured, second from top, with delegation members); Rep. Brian Baird (WA); Rep. Jim McDermott (WA); Rep Dave Reichert (WA); and Rep. Don Young (AK).

Share on TwitterShare via email

Telling our Stories: Just Good Business

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

By Jeff Clarke
Vice President, Rasmuson Foundation
President, Philanthropy Northwest Board of Directors
&
Daniel Kemmis
President, Northwest Area Foundation Board of Directors
Member,
Philanthropy Northwest Board of Directors

Last month, a Philanthropy Northwest delegation of 15 joined hundreds of philanthropic peers from across the country at Foundations on the Hill in Washington, D.C. Consistently telling both our individual and collective regional stories to our respective delegations is just good business. With four years of organized investment in engaging public policymakers (and many years of dialogue that preceded action), Philanthropy Northwest is still at an early stage of what we today view as core work.

Still, the collective process and its value seem to be a hard sell within our community. Given our sector’s rich diversity of thought, programmatic and geographic interests, it is understandably independent in action. Our catalytic role rests on and celebrates this diversity. But it is important to remember that our work, in all its rich variety, is enabled by a tax code that is subject to the winds of politics.

Over the four years we’ve been focused on building relationships with policymakers, there has been the opportunity to explain who we are, what we do, how we do it, where we might be a valuable partner and ultimately why society (including the policymaker’s local communities) benefits from our work.

In essence, we’ve built relationships which have lent credibility when sharing feedback on proposed legislation, whether it is perceived as beneficial or harmful to the charitable aspirations of American citizens, our nonprofit partners or the philanthropic sector.

However, we’ve also met folks on Capitol Hill who are deeply skeptical of our sector and remain unconvinced that our work makes enough of a difference to justify the favorable tax treatment it receives. With the mood of the country changing, we have wondered how this might manifest itself in the local, state and national social and political dialogue.

Just last week, two interesting commentaries appeared and we thought they deserved to be shared across the region as food for thought. The Chronicle of Philanthropy and The Huffington Post both ask the question, “can foundations prevent the growing populist sentiment in America from turning on them?” These are interesting reads. The emerging themes: communicate, communicate, communicate; be transparent and responsive.

Eighteen months ago, the Council on Foundation’s (COF) Board commissioned a national task force to formulate a sector call to action around the collective adoption of both modern communication practices and enabling digital technology. The Task Force, chaired by COF Board and Philanthropy Northwest member Akhtar Badshah of Microsoft, is sharing its findings with the field over the next few months. Here is a passage from the Task Force findings that echo those of the commentators:

“We know that nature abhors a vacuum. We also know that today, with the advent of such powerful communication and information technology tools, any vacuum can be instantly filled by an individual blogger. Today, the threat before philanthropy is that others, to our detriment, will collectively decide what our sector’s story has been, is, and will be—and then they will act on the decisions they make about us. But there is also an opportunity. Philanthropy can collectively tell and own our story in a way that is explainable, accessible, and appropriate for the general public, policymakers, and each of us. But for this to happen, we must act.”

Do Philanthropy Northwest members see these dynamics in their geographic areas and, if so, how are each of us responding?

Share on TwitterShare via email