Message from the President

This one’s personal.

I just finished participating in the Council’s leadership convening on diversity and inclusion in philanthropy, which brought together CEOs, trustees, executive search consultants, HR officers, and Council members.

The conversation was anchored by a report the Council released today—Career Pathways to Philanthropic Leadership 2009 Baseline Report, examining the characteristics of foundation and grantmaking executives appointed during a five-year period (2004–2008).

The report looks at how the philanthropic sector chooses its leaders and what leaders themselves say about the process. This baseline report is part of a broader Council initiative, Career Pathways to Philanthropic Leadership, which focuses on inclusive practices in philanthropic leadership, talent acquisition, and management.

The research highlights will no doubt contribute to our field’s knowledge of executive appointments to foundations. But, the most illuminating and personal finding to me was the following:

The majority of the successful candidates transitioned from fields outside of philanthropy—primarily from the business (24.3 percent) and nonprofit (24.8 percent) sectors.

That’s why it’s personal.

I am an example of a leader in the philanthropic field who came from outside of philanthropy. I was selected to lead the Council on Foundations because the board believed I brought many years of professional experience as a change agent and a communicator to the position, along with a commitment to the common good. I also was eager to learn more about the philanthropic field—its successes and challenges—and to use my skills to help move the Council’s work forward.

At the Council, we celebrate diversity in all that we do. I believe diversity in thought, perspective, and experience is crucial to our field. In addition to race, gender, ethnicity, economic circumstance, class, sexual orientation, geography, and varying forms of ability. The greater the diversity and inclusive practices in our organizations, the greater our ability to lead and succeed; to have real impact.

If we are to realize this vision, we will have to strive for balance:

• We must continue to seek the best ideas, resources, and people for our field—regardless of whether we find them in business, government, or elsewhere.
• We must develop emerging leaders both in our sector and in our communities to assume the mantle of leadership for our sector.

That’s why the Council’s Career Pathways to Philanthropic Leadership project and field dialogue are important. The project is intended to help expand the pipeline of talent competing for top positions. It also reinforces the Council’s long-term commitment to leadership in the sector and to inclusive practices.

I am committed to this work because I know its importance to the field and its personal meaning to me.

Steve Gunderson is the president and CEO of the Council on Foundations.

Note to our readers: You can read this post on the Council’s blog RE: Philanthropy.

The View from Here

By: Gary Yates

A recent study by a nonprofit advocacy organization indicated that, among large foundations, The California Wellness Foundation has one of the most diverse boards with regard to ethnicity (70 percent) and gender (50 percent). But this wasn’t always the case.

In 1995, the foundation’s board of directors did not look like the state’s diverse population. Barely three years old then, the board was composed of four white men.

By 1998, the board had expanded to 10 directors—half were ethnic minorities and half were women. Also, our staff had more than doubled, reflecting greater diversity in ethnicity, gender, and professional background.

How did we get there in three years?

First, let me state what the board did not do:
•    We did not formalize and pursue diversity goals aimed at governance and programming.
•    We did not establish benchmarks, metrics, or quotas.
•    We did not create a diversity plan or conduct diversity audits.

Yet, in a short, three-year period, we succeeded in transforming the foundation into one of the most diverse in the nation. We became a major California funder of nonprofit organizations providing health services to communities of color and advocating to improve the health of the underserved.

I believe two key factors made our transformation possible: We stayed focused on our mission and made a concerted effort to “live” our operating principles by integrating them into all facets of our work.

Mission Matters
We never took our eyes off of our mission, which is to improve the health of the people of California. One of the foundation’s key priorities in pursuing this mission is to address the health needs of California’s “traditionally underserved populations, including low-income individuals, people of color, youth, and residents of rural areas.” The board logically believed that we would be most effective in reaching underserved communities around the state if we recruited trustees and staff armed with expertise, diverse professional backgrounds, and first-hand experience in California’s diverse nonprofit sector.

Embracing Our Operating Principles
We were informed by the board’s 1995 operating principles, which guided the foundation as we developed our grantmaking program. Among the operating principles was one devoted to promoting pluralism and inclusiveness:

“Given the diversity of California’s population, the Foundation will seek to engage individuals on its board and staff who are representative of that diversity and committed to incorporating the values of pluralism and inclusiveness into every aspect of their work. We will also seek to fund organizations that embrace those values in their mission[s] and activities.”

We “lived” the principles. By that I mean we worked consciously and intentionally at all levels to bring the best expertise to the foundation in pursuit of our mission. We hired people with backgrounds in health, finance, communications, philanthropy, and law, among other professions. For California, it was critical to recruit professionals who understood the multi-ethnic dynamics of our state.

This effort was not limited to board and staff. We sought consultants, who were experts in their fields. For example, our communications program uses multi-language media outreach campaigns and cannot rely on one general media market agency. We retain multiple firms with diverse backgrounds in reaching key audiences through ethnic, general market, and Internet media. For more than 15 years, we have worked with ethnic- and women-owned agencies to build a communications program that effectively reaches diverse communities.

Foundation Effectiveness
Has the recruitment of a diverse board and staff helped us to be more effective in our grantmaking? I have no quantitative evidence but I believe it has. We’ve made more grants in diverse regions of the state and reached more underserved populations, including women and girls, than we would have without the nonprofit experience and ethnic/gender knowledge that the board and staff represent.  A recent assessment of our grantmaking by an independent evaluation firm noted significant progress toward achieving our goals, and a constituent survey we conduct every three years showed increased satisfaction with our interactions and process.

That said, I do not endorse a “one size fits all approach” regarding diversity for all foundations. I respect the diversity in the philanthropic sector and the independence of individual foundations to honor donor intent, mission, and strategy. Each foundation’s board of trustees must develop strategies and activities they deem appropriate to achieve their charitable missions. In our case, embracing the values of pluralism and inclusiveness in developing a board and staff somewhat representative of the state’s diverse population was, and is, an effective way to work toward improving the health of the people of California.

Gary Yates is the president and CEO of The California Wellness Foundation.

The Baltimore Community Foundation’s (BCF) commitment to diversity and inclusion—in our grantmaking and fundraising and among our board of trustees—is fundamental to our capacity to serve our region. Generating assets and using them effectively for community improvement demands that a foundation understand the community it serves. Personally, it is hard to imagine how a foundation could fully understand a community and help create a shared vision for its future, without representatives of the populations that comprise that region.

Embarking on this Journey
We embraced diversity at the BCF for selfish reasons. If we were going to re-populate our city, have a dynamic economy, and help our children secure jobs and other opportunities, then we needed to understand and incorporate the principles of diversity in our work and organization.

We made a strategic decision to begin our work with Baltimore’s majority population—African Americans—which was also its economic minority. The BCF board felt strongly that in a city where 70 percent of the population is composed of African Americans, the board needed to look more like the city. African American voices were needed to inform our work as we moved forward.

Increasing Board Diversity
Since we made and acted on that decision, there isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t recognize the value of the increased diversity that we enjoy on the BCF board. For example, five of the first seven trustees named after I became CEO were African American. The two white trustees were the presidents of Johns Hopkins University and the Annie E. Casey Foundation. All seven have brought vision, wisdom, and commitment to BCF.

BCF has eight committees that oversee our programmatic and institutional responsibilities. In addition to the trustees, we recruit representatives from our donor and larger community to serve on these all-important committees, and we challenge each committee to seek diversity among its members. By bringing diverse voices and perspectives to the table, we are helping to ensure that individuals with localized and specific knowledge of community concerns are included in the decisions that affect their communities. These committees also serve as wonderful proving grounds for potential board service.

The benefits a diverse board are broad and deep. Not only do all donors appreciate our ability to represent their philanthropic interests, but also our board members of color, for instance, have given many millions of dollars to BCF and its grantees, inspiring donors from all backgrounds to join them. (BCF manages many millions of dollars on behalf of donors of color. We would not have attracted those dollars if we didn’t have the rich diversity that’s reflected on our board.)

BCF is a place where Jews, Christians, Blacks, Whites, men, women, gay, straight, Asians, Latinos, young, and old can meet to build dreams and raise the resources for a healthy future. Reflecting, embracing, and finding common ground among our donors will be a core component of our ability to realize our ambitious goals for Baltimore’s future.

The Evolving “Face” of Philanthropy
Traditionally, the philanthropic community was made up of two kinds of people: individuals who had amassed great wealth and those who represented individuals who had great wealth. In both cases, the field was dominated by white males. That’s changed—as it should—to reflect the evolving nature of our cities and communities.

I firmly believe that diversity is at the core of philanthropy, just as diversity is at the core of our democracy and culture. The “melting pot” that is America has created the wealth and opportunity that has made our country strong; we will have to reflect the changing demographics if we are going to continue to grow that wealth and ensure that all have the opportunity to benefit from it. This is hard work but we need to continue to be attentive to diversity and inclusion as the philanthropic field considers how best to serve society in the future.

Thomas E. Wilcox is the president and CEO of the Baltimore Community Foundation.

10 Minutes with…

In 2007, computer-maker Dell Inc. created a new position–vice president of corporate responsibility–to oversee global diversity, philanthropy, and sustainability. The company hired Gilbert Casellas—a professional with 30 years of experience in law, business, and government and the former chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as a member of the Coca-Cola Diversity Task Force and of Toyota’s Diversity Advisory Board.

In an interview for Diversity & Inclusion: Lessons from the Field, a publication by the Council on Foundations and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Casellas’ message was clear: Diversity is an inescapable fact of life but inclusion—the act of recognizing and maximizing diversity to unleash innovation and creativity—is often a forgotten but essential component of successful diversity efforts. The challenge for all institutions, according to Casellas, is to leverage diversity to create a better community, workplace, and world. In this follow-up Q &A, Casellas offers some more thoughts on the issue and ideas for practice.

T>A>I: From a corporate perspective, discuss the triple bottom line concept and its relationship to diversity and inclusion.

Casellas: This is a term most often used within the context of sustainable business practices. What this means is that the work of a corporation is not only about a commitment to bottom line profits, but also to the planet and the people. At Dell, we believe we can do all three: we can be a responsible corporate citizen where we live and work, where our employees live and work, and where we conduct business. This is a challenge for some companies, but in particular for global companies.

With respect to diversity and inclusion, I’ll focus on the people aspect of the triple bottom line. Thirty to 40 years ago, many companies would enter a local market and seek certain concessions. They would operate their businesses as they saw fit and then leave without really being part of the community. Today, expectations of local communities have changed, and so, too, have corporate practices. It is important to have a set of values that:

• drive how you operate
• leverage employee knowledge
• honor local laws and customs
• treat employees well
• interact with communities respectfully

We don’t come in with a heavy hand or with the perspective that we know everything. We come in as listeners first and seek partnerships when we are invited.

T>A>I: In a down economy, are diversity and inclusion luxuries?

Casellas: Diversity and inclusive practices are critical to an organization’s long-term success.  In my opinion, they are assets. When you’re faced with a turbulent economic climate, the question is: What investments do you make and hold onto during tough times? Because when the economic turnaround occurs, where will you be as an organization? Will you be so far behind your competition that you will be unable to recover or to attain similar levels of inclusion?

It is very difficult for any organization to operate in this world with a workforce that is not reflective of the talent pool—and a talent pool that is not reflective of the marketplace. Consumers care about and want to know what you look like now. They want to see themselves reflected in your product mix, in your product design, and in your advertising.

T>A>I: Would you share a concrete example of how diversity and inclusion have increased your company’s competitive advantage?

Casellas: Many of our customers are public institutions such as governments, commissions, and school systems from around the world. In a recent instance, our resource group of Latino employees provided significant insights into the community, which increased our organizational legitimacy. As a result, we received positive feedback from our governmental customers who said they appreciated that the individuals in the room spoke their language and had a strong understanding of their culture.

Another example is a pilot marketing program we’ve developed that targets women. If you look at consumer purchasing statistics, women tend to be the predominant purchasers of consumer goods—including electronics. Designing and implementing a marketing program and products that appeal to and are inclusive of the needs and perspectives of a specific consumer group gives an organization a competitive advantage.

T>A>I: With a global workforce, how do you ensure that your organization taps into local pools of diverse talent?

Casellas: Our CEO Michael Dell has made this an organizational priority. Dell operates in multiple countries, making it easy to rely on the practice of recruiting expatriates to work in foreign countries. While we certainly employ expatriates, we’ve challenged ourselves to identify and create a local talent pool of executives. We’ve been successful in places such as China, India, Morocco, and South Africa.

We want employees at all levels to look up and down the chain of command and see themselves represented. As a result, we’re creating a pool of true globalists who can move around the world with global dexterity. My long-term vision is to identify 250–300 leaders worldwide who possess the financial acumen, managerial skills, and leadership skills, along with the ability to manage differences, and create a culture of inclusion.

Ethical Quandary

By: Maya Horton Harris

When making grants to individuals, foundations often collect basic information about their grantees, asking questions about gender, race, or ethnicity. Collecting and using such data for statistical purposes, such as a report to the foundation’s board, staff, grantees, the community, foundation colleagues, or policymakers, is a useful, internal benchmarking practice.

But sometimes, the information collected can be viewed as personal, which some believe can harm rather than help a grantee. Grantmakers cite the following examples that often arise: suppose your grantee is an undocumented citizen, or a student who identifies as LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Queer), or a single mother infected with HIV. Should foundations collect and release such data to measure the field’s impact sector-wide? What about collecting personal demographic information about your own staff and board? Will the affected populations benefit if foundations report personal information, despite privacy concerns? When does information become too “private” to collect and report?

Let’s look at both sides of this hotly debated issue.

When Collecting Data Makes Sense

Grantmakers that favor data collection and dissemination point to its positive impact on:

• helping an organization through its strategic planning process
• increasing organizational transparency
• advancing advocacy efforts
• building accountability within the field

Perhaps the strongest argument from proponents is that foundations that collect information about their staffs’ or grantees’ race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation and identification, and ability , allow the organization to better understand its grantmaking practices (which populations benefit?) and organizational structure (who’s involved in the decision making process?).

The Other Side of the Argument
Critics note that numbers alone do not necessarily mean key issues are being effectively addressed. What’s more: It is difficult to make data-driven decisions when not every foundation collects or defines data in the same way.

The other key concern is the ethical dilemma foundations face when the collection of personal data, such as immigration status or private health information, harms staff or grantees. A donor doesn’t want to learn that a program they funded is being used in a way that will effectively cause a grantee undue stress or subject them to discrimination. Hence, many foundations avoid data collection efforts altogether.

A Note to Grantmakers
If you decide to collect personal data about your grantees and/or staff, familiarize yourself with federal and state privacy rules. For instance, while U.S. privacy laws do not protect undocumented citizens, privacy concerns are still especially acute for those who face deportation.

Here’s a general rule of thumb: Personal information about your grantees, board, and staff should be collected and shared only with the individuals’ consent, making clear that providing the information is voluntary. In some cases, consent may be implied because the applicant opted to participate in the grant application process. However, to avoid confusion, a best practice when collecting and using highly sensitive information is to let the applicant know:

• What kind of data you are collecting
• Who will have access to the data
• Where the data will be kept
• How you plan to use the data

Here are two more best practices: aggregate the data in such a way that the grantee’s or staff’s identifying information remains anonymous; and work with your board and human resources department to create a clear policy about how information is collected and used, communicating that policy to your grantees and/or staff upfront. This data should not be used to discriminate against a person’s candidacy or position within the organization.

Note: When grantmaking to specific groups, foundations must take steps to ensure they are not fostering racial discrimination. Grants based on race or ethnicity should be carefully examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they promote or alleviate discrimination.

To learn more about this topic, see The Foundation Center’s resource on diversity metrics.

Maya Horton Harris is a staff attorney at the Council on Foundations.

Public Domain

Toronto’s Maytree Foundation facilitates change through leadership. Nice words but what do they mean? In the case of Maytree’s DiverseCity: The Greater Toronto Leadership Project, specifically its DiverseCity onBoard initiative, those words mean changing the world by:

- Identifying potential leaders among immigrants and minorities who have been underrepresented in the power structure.

- Matching these leaders with positions in government and public agencies, boards and commissions.

- Enabling governing bodies to more closely resemble—and therefore more effectively serve—those who are governed.

SITUATION
According to research by the Maytree Foundation and the Diversity Institute, Canada is one of the most diverse countries in the world. Approximately 20 percent of its population was born outside of the country and 16 percent are visible minorities. (The Canadian Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as “persons, other than Aboriginal Peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.”) Examples include Chinese, South Asian, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Southeast Asian, Arab, West Asian, Korean, and Japanese individuals.

In Vancouver and Toronto, minorities make up 42 percent and 43 percent of the population, respectively.

Canada’s population is diverse but does its leadership reflect that diversity? The Maytree Foundation set out to get an answer.

Working with the foundation, researchers Wendy Cukier and Margaret Yap at the Diversity Institute at Ryerson University noted the following: “In a selected region of the Greater Toronto Area where 49.5 percent of the population is visible minority, only 13 percent of 3,257 leaders from this same area are visible minorities.”

Ratna Omidvar, the president of the Maytree Foundation, explains what that finding means to her, “I’ve always felt that public institutions and government have a higher bar to measure up to because of their public service mission, which must reflect in many ways a changing public. The effectiveness of public boards depends on the people who serve on them, and that’s why we decided to get involved.”

ACTION
Four years ago, Omidvar and her staff began to address this leadership gap in diversity by creating the DiverseCity onBoard initiative, which is coordinated by a manager and two staff members at the foundation and is a shining example of an effective private-public partnership.

“The premise is simple: There are qualified and diverse people who live in the Greater Toronto Area and who would like to contribute to the greater good. Unfortunately, they don’t have the networks or they aren’t aware of the opportunities to serve on boards of agencies, taskforces, or commissions in the city,” Omidvar said.

Foundation staff spread the word about the initiative to various groups in the Greater Toronto Area, asking qualified people to apply and serve on public boards. Simultaneously, foundation staff worked with the local government to understand how the board-appointment process worked and which offices and organizations were interested in placing individuals of diverse backgrounds.

According to Ontario Public Appointments Secretariat Debra Roberts, Ontario’s Premier made it clear that he wanted public agencies to look like the face of Ontario, which included more ethnic diversity, more women, and greater regional representation. Roberts and her staff, along with staff at many other government agencies, work closely with the Maytree Foundation to identify and help place individuals with diverse backgrounds on public boards.

“Maytree plays the role of facilitator. We identify qualified individuals and place them in our database—so they can get the attention of the decisionmaker, which in this case is the government,” Omidvar said.

The foundation staff reviews all applications and interviews every candidate. For individuals who are interested in serving on boards but who aren’t “board ready,” the foundation offers leadership and governance training.

“There are layers of sophistication that are required when you are looking at a public appointment to a board or a commission that is charged with protecting the public good and public funds,” Omidvar noted.

Once individuals are selected, their names and profiles (including information such as their competencies, skills, interests, and passions) are kept in the foundation’s database, which government partners can access. The password-protected system helps the foundation manage the process effectively and efficiently.

RESULT
Omidvar is ambitious. Her goal is to place 500 candidates on public and nonprofit boards by sometime in 2010. To date, the foundation has placed more than 300 appointments.

Her lessons learned to grantmakers who are interested in forming a partnership with government are simple:

• Bring to your meetings (especially the initial one) a well-articulated fact base and business case explaining why, where, and how government has a role.
• Represent a specific demographic (in Omidvar’s case, visible minorities) and ensure that you make the link with the broader public good to elevate your cause above that of the usual special interest group.
• Have a concrete “ask.”

Successful Board Placement: The Ontario Science Center
The Ontario Science Centre was one of the first local institutions the Maytree Foundation helped by increasing board diversity. The centre’s exhibits, educational offerings, and special events attract both residents and visitors to Toronto. It receives half of its $36 million budget from the government of Ontario and raises the remaining half from ticket sales, sponsorships, and other lines of business.

The centre is located in an ethnically mixed neighborhood, and the centre’s board realized that visitors—increasingly South Asian, Black, and Latino children—differed significantly from the individuals who worked there and governed the institution. Representatives from the centre worked with Maytree Foundation staff to identify potential board candidates, ultimately selecting an individual of Palestinian decent to serve on the centre’s board.

According to Ratna Omidvar, president of the Maytree Foundation, the addition of a diverse perspective on the board has helped the Ontario Science Centre better develop exhibits with its neighbors in mind. For example, the centre created its successful “Sultans of Science” exhibit, which showcased scientific innovations and accomplishments from Turkey and the Middle East. The new board member supported the exhibit and encouraged the centre to reach out to untapped communities, including one of the largest Muslim communities in Canada.

To learn more about the Ontario Science Centre’s board diversity strategy, read the Maytree Foundation publication, Diversity Matters.

Additional Resources:

• Maytree Foundation web site
• DiverseCity: The Greater Toronto Leadership Project website, see especially The Knowledge Centre
• The Value of Diverse Leadership
• DiverseCity Counts: The Importance of Diversity in the Greater Toronto Area
• Policy in Focus, Issue 8
• Board Governance Resources

Overheard

T>A>I asked more than 15 diverse identity-based affinity groups and bloggers why diversity in grantmaking is important? We received seven insightful, thoughtful, and even personal responses. One thing was clear: Regardless of identity or demographic group, people are passionate about the importance and necessity of diversity in grantmaking and aren’t afraid to share why.

Here, in their own words, are snippets from their submissions; click on the Read More links to read contributors’ in-depth responses. As a reminder, T>A>I doesn’t take sides; the e-journal serves as a forum where you can share your thoughts and ideas as well as concerns about an issue.

FUNDERS FOR LGBTQ ISSUES
“For starters, the diversity in grantmaking conversation needs a clearer, more principled definition. Defined too broadly, ‘diversity’ conflates categories associated with historical inequality (race, class, gender identity, sexuality) with categories that merely denote difference (political partisanship, personality type). It assures a room full of people that everyone’s perspective matters yet incorrectly infers that everyone’s perspective is equal.” Read More

- Robert Espinoza
Director of Research and Communications
Funders for LGBTQ Issues

- Archana Sridhar
Blogger
South Asian Philanthropy Project (SAPP)

Archana Sridhar
South Asian Philanthropy Project (SAPP)
www.southasianphilanthropy.org

We often think of South Asians in the United States as newly wealthy, super-educated, and professional. While this is certainly the case for many South Asian Americans (and thus the focus of many of South Asian Philanthropy Project’s (SAPP’s) own efforts to stimulate philanthropy), there are also pockets of need within the South Asian American community beyond what we normally think about the population. Our community faces issues of poverty, class, immigration status, language access, and gender inequality.

For a grantmaker then, diversity in grantmaking means—most obviously—increasing the flow of grants to beneficiaries in need within the South Asian American community. For this to happen, though, program officers themselves need to be more diverse and connected to the community—intimately understanding its dynamics in relation to the overall health of the larger population. For example, the South Asian community faces some special needs for funding and services, such as immigration counseling, legal aid, certain types of health care and education (such as heart disease and diabetes), domestic violence care, or small business start up and education. On the flip side, diverse grantmaking would leverage special talents in diverse communities—in our case, perhaps our strengths in the health care and computer technology fields, our strong connections abroad, or our commitment to education more generally.

But these are the obvious answers, right? Reframing the question a bit helps to see a bigger issue that I’ve mentioned before when blogging about the Greenlining Institute controversy: Rather than thinking about diversity in grantmaking only on the grantmaker side, what about thinking about diversity on the grantseeker side too? There are many agencies that have a long history of successful foundation fundraising that need to examine their own practices when it comes to diversity—here I’m thinking of very established community organizations that are large grant recipients, such as museums, orchestras, and private schools. This may mean diversifying their boards and staffs, but also (more importantly in my opinion), diversifying their outreach to beneficiaries.

Grantmakers can play an important role in promoting diversity by advocating for it as a stakeholder with grantees. Grantmakers can ask applicants questions such as:

• Who benefits from your programs and services?
• What is the breakdown of your beneficiaries by race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.?
• What steps are you taking to reach out to diverse communities in your programming and access to your services (such as language, board representation, location of activities, etc.)?

Finally—a last point. Our work at SAPP so far has shown that while there are tons of organizations serving the needs of South Asians abroad, there are not too many focused on the population here in North America. Of those that are, most are focused on discrete and small-scale approaches—so small-scale that grantmakers may not find them attractive to fund. There are not that many larger-scale organizations providing multi-layered services to South Asians nationally or even regionally (South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) being the main exception that I can think of right now). Diversity in grantmaking may also mean that grantmakers to diverse communities prepare a different set of criteria for evaluation, consider more seed funding grants, and provide education to small nonprofits about scaling up and replicating their services.

---

- Trista Harris
Blogger
New Voices of Philanthropy

- Diana Campoamor
President
Hispanics in Philanthropy (HIP)

- Chris Grumm
President
Women’s Funding Network

- Sharon D. Toomer
Director of Communications Membership
Association of Black Foundation Executives

- Joy A. Persall
Executive Director
Native Americans in Philanthropy

Message from the President

In the midst of the economic crisis this past spring, I started a conversation with the planning committee for the 2009 Rural Philanthropy Conference with one question: Faced with restricted travel budgets, should we simply cancel the event? After a thorough discussion, we agreed to move forward with planning a small-scale gathering of 40 rural philanthropic leaders who would use the time as a working session to offer some thoughts on growing rural philanthropy.

By now you know that over 150 of our rural philanthropic colleagues took part in the Little Rock-based conference. The end result was a gathering defined by its content and outcomes, as well as the enthusiasm and commitment of its attendees.

What made this conference a success? To be honest, I am not 100 percent sure, but I suspect at least four ingredients were at play:

• Our powerful agenda combined four tracks on four priority topics, allowing attendees to dive deep into a specific content area. On the last day of the conference, participants in the four working groups produced a set of strategies and recommendations for each of the tracks. Thus, substance, continuity, and outcomes were unknown before one arrived but displayed at the time everyone left.
• Excellent and relevant plenary and session speakers offered their insights and knowledge, addressing the specific needs of rural philanthropy. Former President Bill Clinton gave an incredible speech on rural philanthropy, then extended his time for a longer conversation with those in attendance.
• Our site visits were a key part of the program providing us with two excellent examples of rural philanthropy’s work in rural Arkansas.
• The William J. Clinton Presidential Center served as both a great location and host. The opportunity to gather at the Clinton Presidential Center and in Arkansas contributed to both the incentive to attend and the quality of our programming.

As a child growing up in rural Wisconsin, I learned something about rural folks many years ago that held true for this conference: We are survivors. It is part of our genetic make-up. Rural folks are accustomed to managing through unanticipated challenges like the weather, commodity prices, and a lack of resources. The economic crisis of the past two years was just another chapter, but it was not one that would define our work or our focus on the future. In Little Rock, I noticed 150 people who had almost no interest in mourning the loss of philanthropic endowments over the past year. Instead, they wanted to learn from the past and move forward.

In this edition of T>A>I, you will see highlights of the recommendations from the four working groups, along with many other insights from those who participated in this conference. This conference was not convened to create another list of “to-do” items for the Council, the National Rural Funders Collaborative (our co-sponsor for this event), or even the government. Rather, we sought to identify the steps that all of us—collectively and as individual foundations or rural regions—could use to advance rural philanthropy.

A final thought: Rural philanthropy doesn’t spend time convening and talking about what others should do for us. Rather, we seek to find common strategies that can increase our collective impact. From transfer-of-wealth studies, we know that time is of the essence if we hope to capture even a small part of this transfer into philanthropy, particularly in rural America. Of course, time is always a concern in rural America. That may really explain why 150 people showed up for a conference designed as a small conversation among 40.