Meyer Memorial Trust

You and we face some serious problems. Being compassionate people (and if you weren't you wouldn't be working for a non-profit) we have watched the defunding of so many programs over the years we are frightened that we will not be able to help enough. The government has pretty much abandoned the working class and the poor. I won't get into partisan politics but the current administration seems to have a different agenda than we do and short of electing new leaders there is not much we can do. In the meantime the problems increase and the help lessens.
Joining with the private sector is a good idea, MMT came from the private sector, but a lot of folks are asking. Sustainable giving requires sustainable givers and it also requires a knowledge of what is needed by people and projects you give to. Duplication is one problem. Too many people working on different parts of the elephant. Too many people in charge of the money that don't know what it does or doesn't do for people. Too many talented sincere volunteers being wasted and burned out doing jobs they could do better if they were allowed to.
I read a very interesting piece on interns recently. No jokes please. Interns are basically volunteers but they are volunteering to further their careers. A lot of volunteers get involved for social reasons as much as to help others. The helping is just a bonus and is good karma. The talented and sincere volunteers often work after work and some would be eligible for the help they are providing. Most people who sit on boards and committees can only do so because they can afford it so they come from a similiar class. They share ideals and mind sets. Non-profits that reach out to minorities bemoan the fact that they can't find minorities to be on their boards and committee's. The simple reason is usually economic. An awful lot of the service non-profits provide is needed because of jobs lost, budgets cut, and programs slashed. Think about paying a small wage to volunteers etc. and you will solve more than one problem.

We are so grateful that none of our funds or funding are required for raising support. 100% of every dollar we're given goes directly to the families we serve. I believe our program is very unique in that it is completely self-sustaining. What a relief this is. Thank you for helping us with equipment requests so we don't have to pass that expense on to our participants.

Sometimes 'funder fatigue' works at the government level as well as with private funders. It is so easy to say 'we've done that before, what can we do that is new'. Or, "that was the old administration, we are going to fund different programs". The frustration is that the tried and true service programs do work and there are many good non-profits getting service dollars out there where they are effective.
It is scary to watch the unfunding of these programs with no one stepping up to the plate to replace the dollars. As a non-profit we can't just watch the erosion of funds without looking for ways to diversify or we will collapse. Waiting for the tide to turn may take years and that could be too late. However, there are some unique new tools emerging. One State department is offering capital funds to non-profits to use to try to make money to fund program operation. These are to invest and become our own revolving funds to try to earn money. However there is risk and this is probably only feasible for a small sector of the non-profits at it takes an agency experienced in development. This may be more like the for-profit / non-profit partnership mentioned above.
Other ideas?

Thank you for acknowledging this very disturbing trend. Many foundations have taken the position in the past that they will not "replace" government funding. I think this position has to be re-thought. While as you said, MMT can't possibly replace ALL de-funded programs perhaps foundations can commit to bridge funding for 4 years--this being the term of the US Presidency. This office has increasingly been used for implementing the president's personal agenda.

Secondly, I think foundations need to encourage and fund social venture partnerships and hybrid public/private ventures.

And finally, to the extent allowed by law, foundations need to exert political pressure and provide politicians education about the profound impact the increasingly willy-nilly nature of government social service safety net programs are being treated.

Thanks for listening.

The evidence is clear as to why government is divesting in social programs.
1. there is widespread corruption.
2. those is power are consolidating their positions by allowing those with high incomes unreasonable tax cuts with the fiction that it helps the economy. They are bribing the high income people to support their political campaigns.
3.there is inordinate waste in government.
4.foundations can do little until the basic problems are eased. There again the evidence is clear that there will always be corruption, but it can and should be curtailed and uprooted when it can be done. "Vigilance is the price of Democracy."
5. We have several wars which are not approved by the majority of our population. And contrary a mere majority of the vote in the last Presidential election is NOT A MANADATE TO GO TO WAR!!! Lots of our national treasure is wasted on those getting rich on this war without materially helping those poor people in the Arabic countries.

THROW THE RASCALS OUT AS A START!!!

Somehow I knew this would get political but almost everything having to do with people is political by definition.
I read another interesting approach that some non-profits are taking. Mergers. Yep, doing the corporate thing. Well, in this case its goal is helping people instead of the bottom line, but the theory is the same. Merging non-profits that work in similar areas, food banks, soup kitchens or arts associations and art schools, or drug counseling and women's shelters. (Recent reduction in drug treatment budgets have caused a spike in spousal abuse reports. That was a suprize?) If we could work together to combine administrative costs, fund raising cost, grant writing and volunteer recuiting we could cut down on expenses and use that money to help others.
Also, why are 501c3's forms so hard to
fill out and so poorly worded? Small community non-profits need a lawyer and an accountant to even file, plus a $150 fee. If MMT brought several small not-for-profit groups under the umbrella of its 501c3 and applied for grants and funds in their name, did their books and monitored them for corrution they wouldn't need their own 501c3.
But is closing I must agree that a change in our priorities as a nation needs to happen and that means THROW THE RASCALS OUT!!!

peace.

Non-profits are crucial! Government fads come and go, as does the funding. Non-profits can provide a stability that government cannot - a stability based upon their continued support of worthy causes. Communities need to figure out what is most important to them, and commit to sustaining those things, with non-profits there to assist in the start-up stages.

Foundations often want to help start up something new,innovative and exciting (who wouldn't?). Unfortunately, these programs can add to the operating burden of an organization without the capacity to sustain them. I am glad to see a rise in capacity building grants and hope to see a rise in operating grants as well. Maybe the greater good would come from endowing a worthy program or the expansion of a working program with a solid funding base - rather than starting something new and "innovative". We could go out and look for what's working? Then grant support to keep it that way or expand it from a solid base. Supporting revenue building capacity in some creative way rather than adding a new program or service(easy to say, hard to define!) Of course, in some cases defining a program that ends on purpose or can re-define itself for a changing set of needs is a very good thing.....

We'd like to see grants, similar to the capacity-building grants Meyer has traditionally funded, that focus on encouraging non-profit efficiency and effectiveness...instead of necessarily "new sexy programs"....ie: purchase of new software/staff training where such investment increases an org's effectiveness; staff development (crucial); invest in planning for more effective use of info technology; board or volunteer or intern program expansion; collaborations where non-profits choose to "share a function" (sort of "mini-mergers"); any investment that increases earned revenue without taking an organization off-mission; outsourcing functions to contractors who contribute substantial amounts of inkind service instead of full-fees (instead of staff expansion); support for collaborative fundraising efforts between organizations pursuing similar missions; underwrite independent audit services for everyone (we're all paying $5-10,000/year to CPAs); BUT MOST IMPORTANT>>>>

invest the resources and drive the collaboration to develop coordination between the foundations that would develop a consistent organization finances/budget formats for grant applications and for reporting. We know that each foundation will still need project budgets, etc...BUT the amount of time spent translating budgets and financial info for each of the grant applications written is extraordinary. This should actually be a national effort, but a good start would be to standardize SOME of the financial data required for our local foundation apps/reporting.

Campaign Leadership:
- Meyer Memorial Trust poses a long-term perplexing question; and one pertinent to the Assistance League's Capital Campaign.
- During my forty-year social work career, experiences of program services coming and going are multiple and disturbing. Sustainable funding is naturally pivotal for survival.
- However, there is a positive side to social service funding failure, related to collateral benefits, as follows:
1. Programs failure is the wrong word, as many if not most, were
successful before funding ran out;
2. Failed program money has primarily gone into staff training and career building.
These staff members usually move on to other fields of community service.
2. Non-existent programs are sometimes (often) integrated into larger entities. At
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, our social service budget fell from a high of
+$8M to a low of $3.5M over approximately six (6) years. However, Hopewell
House for Hospice Care was assumed by Legacy Health Systems and thrives
today; the Women & Children Recovery Center was taken over by City Center
Concerns and also thrives today. Meyer Trust made two significant grants to
Hopewell House, which at the time, prevented service collapse. One grant of
$320,000 paid off the mortgage which allowed $3,500 a month to be applied to
program services.
- MMT poses an interesting solution, namely, funding quasi-non-profit/profit entities. While not admitting it, most non-profit private hospitals are in reality quasi hybrids; so is Good Will Industries of Oregon. They operate on a business model; board members are primarily business persons; receive multiple financial sources, fee for service, community contributions and government funding. Records show that the Sisters of Providence hospitals operate on an approximate 6-9% profit margin annually. They don't call it "profit" but "revenues" for present and future capacity building.
- This hybrid organizational model has relevance for the Assistance League of Portland, because ALP IS ONE! Funding children-safety-net-services for 44 years by operating two businesses is a hybrid model. This sterling history of sustainability has been achieved by volunteers operating a Thrift Store and Consignment Store on a 7% cost basis, and by operating special events and individual contribution without a paid development staff. No government funding has been received with the exception at the Children's Dental Center of the Portland School District's contribution of $7,000 for annual supplies (real cost is +$35,000).
- I will develop a more comprehensive report to MMT on this, again, pivotal funding question.
- Interesting that Meyer Memorial Trust and the Murdock Charitable Trust have both provided sustainable funding leadership during their short 25-year histories. MMT sponsored "business workshops" for non-profits back during the 1980's; and MCT sponsored "Fund Development Training for CEO's and Board Members" during the 1990's. Plus the issue of project sustainability has always been important during their deliberations and decision making.
Your reflections are welcome.

This is exactly why foundations ought to be funding nonprofits' efforts to change public policy in general and budget and tax policy in particular. The paradigms that must be shifted are the attitude that government programs will be less than stable and that groups who care about funding of government programs need not concern themselves with tax policy.

See A Seat at the Table: Keeping the “Public� in Public Policy (http://www.nfg.org/publications/Seat_at_the_Table.pdf) and Reflections on Public Policy Grantmaking, The California Wellness Foundation, May 2002 (http://www.tcwf.org/pdf_docs/reflections/may2002.pdf).

If we can turn the tide of government disinvestment - and restore the investments that made this country great - foundations will then be able to better serve their purposes. Foundations who care about government serving the common good need to put their money into efforts that protect, and restore, the commons.

A shift toward increased funding of general operating expenses might allow non-profits to focus on delivering the services that they best are suited to deliver. It seems that for the past ten years there has been a tendency for foundations to urge non-profits to launch innovative projects that are funded short-term and tend to wither after a couple of years, leaving both the provider and the recipient of the programs stranded.

The problems you pose are very real. We have consistently spurned government funding for some of those very reasons. However, building a solid foundation without government funds is a real challenge.

It would be helpful if grantors would consider funding venture capital for non-profits. Support feasibility studies and start-up costs so agencies do not acquire a debt load, but can combine their "free" services with for-profit endeavors. This would also include funding the legal work required to sort out the 'non-profit', 'not-for-profit' options, etc. This is a hard one for grantors as this requires some risk, which is usually avoided.

Not only is the government getting tired, but private donations are also being stretched thin, with projections of many more non-profits and many more funding options in the future for the same pool of donors.

Becoming self-sustaining is a must and can be done with the support and teamwork of visionary funders and non-profits based on solid business principles.

Gosh, we never had the expectation that if a foundation-funded project was successful, "governments would step forward to provide ongoing operating funds." We do expect that if a project can demonstrate good success, it will also become successful in raising community funds from private sources. The danger of government taking on social (or any) programs is, first, its tendency towards high administrative costs, and second, its tendancy towards self-perpetuation whether or not it continues to be highly effective. A third danger is the tendancy to look to "the government" to fix issues that are the responsibility of the local community.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this shift in funding....private vs. public.
You are absolutely correct....Government funding is decreasing, and the non-profits are having to look under every rock for funds...
I would suggest a couple of things...
Non-profits that have access to funds from regulatory, insurance or tax base initiates (schools, medical clinics, etc) should be given a less of a
priority....Schools need to lobby the legislator....not the same source as non-profits.
As a small non-profit we cannot compete with the public schools for private funds....Foundations should not be funding tax base programs...
Second point....the small non-profits should think about mergers and partnerships in funding.
There are a number of small non-profits that should be coordinating there efforts, thus reducing over-head, etc. This year United Way encouraged applicants to develop partnerships, so that funds can be more effectively utilized by multiple agencies, rather than the traditional single agency approach.

I am encouraged that you are exploring this issue....It will only get worse if we don't find creative solutions to our funding crisis.
Bob

Thank you for posting this topic for discussion. For about 11 years, I was tasked with raising money for a non-profit, and now I'm in the fortunate position of being able to fund the good work that non-profits are doing in the community, so I've lived both sides of this debate. I'd like to expand on two themes developed above as partial solutions to the problem.

First, to amplify Chuck Sheketoff's comment, it is more essential than ever that non-profits and foundations engage the public policy process rather than sit on the sidelines as "neutral" service providers. More foundations are beginning to realize that they can fund policy advocacy without jeopardizing their tax status, if they follow a few simple rules. Conservative foundations such as Heritage, Bradley, Olin, etc, have funded policy advocacy for 30 years, and we're witnessing the result: programs that serve the most vulnerable segments of society are cut, while financial elites receive the rewards. The only way we will reverse this trend is by working together with our grantees to drive a commonly-agreed upon policy agenda that promotes a higher degree of social justice, equity and results. If foundations get in the business of picking up the tab for programs that policy makers have chosen to eliminate, politicians will feel absolved of their responsibility to do the right thing.

Second, individual donors are much better positioned to sustain programs with their gifts than are private foundations. Last time I checked, individuals gave about 81% of the philanthropic dollars in the U.S., while foundations gave just about 11%. Non-profits that diversify their funding base and are effective in recruiting, retaining and growing their individual donors will be in a much stronger position in the long run. I applaud those foundations that do fund operating expenses, and the value of such grants is unquestionable; but as Steven Schroeder, former President of RWJF, once said of supporting general operating expenses, "once you get in, how do you get out without doing irreperable harm to the grantee?"

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to a very important insight that you and other foundations are coming to understand. I would also put capital funding possibly in the same category. Finding operating funding or funding for the increasing demands for infrastructure performance is becoming harder and harder. Recommendations for you to consider include proactively pursuing leveraging opportunities with exisitng governmental funding as well as with other foundations and individuals. Provide incentives for greater colloborations including joint ventures, consolidation of administrative functions and or mergers ncluding more joint funding by foundations and individuals together.

Join and fund aggressively the new Oregon Non Profit Association. Invest in greater training and consultation for nonprofit organizations and foundations. Invest in optimizing the aging boomers for involvement in community service.

Any non profit organization or funder who provides or funds a service in isolation is now part of the problem not part of the solution. We must leverage every available community resource time, money, and people more effectively and efficiently.

Foundations and funders must increase significantly the transparency and evaluation of their own performance, decisions made and outcomes achieved.

Too much of capital allocation in the non profit field is made for emotional, political and uninformed reasons.

Funders need to share much more aggressively expertise and knowledge they have gained with each other and the field.

Whether it is obvious or not government is giving responsibility back to communities for planning, convening, and coordinating resources for the commons.

Foundations and other philanthropists are in an excellent position to help communities and all of the myriad of stakeholders adjust and meet this new reality.

As a non-profit that is linked at the hip to a government agency, I believe there are ways that MMT might actually encourage the continuation of these types of partnerships. My government agency provides staff and facility support while the non-profit provides fundraising opportunities. This allows the non-profit to exist with virtually no administrative costs and the government agency can leverage funding that it would not otherwise get. It works well because if either were to pull out of the project, neither could provide the projects alone.

To get more to the point, if MMT were to provide funding to organizations with such connections to governement with stipulations about support of one type or another, it helps cement those partnerships and keep them moving on. As simple as the equation above is, administrative changes in goverment (which occur in my organization about every 3-5 years) cause major changes in the outlook and support.

So support to such relationships can be a powerful tool to keep them moving ahead and help both the government and non-profit sides win.

This is an important question...but it is less about specific program funding approaches than organizational roles.

Government is clearly disinvesting in community infrastructure at all levels--a trend that looks likely to continue for some time to come. The expectation seems to be that "communities will support the programs they care about". But obviously communities with greater needs aren't likely to have the resources to absorb the cost of the programs they depend on. This is what government used to do--insure a modicum of access to needed services and invest in the infrastructure likely to enable community success over time.

Foundations of all shapes and sizes are increasingly being asked to pick up the slack, and increasingly for basic services. Oregon's (and Portland's) K-12 system being a case in point. (It goes without saying that parents, neighbors and firms are also scrambling to make up the difference--as I write this, our neighborhood association is mowing the school lot next door in preparation for the upgraded playground we--the nieghbors--are building).

Is this "base funder" role something foundations are willing to take on? As a group or one by one? If so, it does imply a very different funding strategy than the "pilot something innovative and different" approach. (and what does happen to the new and novel?) (and how do we know which schools will be outfitted with back packs and art supplies courtesy of their neighboring firms so we can hurry and enroll kids in need there?....)

And if foundations are wary about such a role, where's the place to say so?

If we can't sustain the basics, what does that say about our ability to sustain the civic, social and creative capital that has made us a great place to be?

See Chuck Sheketoff above....

[Good to Great for the Social Sector (Jim Collins) also a fantastic resource for thinking this through].

I agree with much of what has been said. I would like to highlight and expand on a few of the comments. Mergers - The foundation community was originally very supportive of these mergers. In the aftermath we discovered a significant disincentive. I was part of a merger of four agencies. Before the merger we were eligible and often received funding for two out of three of the agencies. After the merger we found ourselves only eligible for one proposal per year. I agree with Jay that if mergers, holding companies, etc. are a tool in the kit than the foundations could do a great deal in encouraging these enterprises.
Social entreprenuerships - As has been said although the name is new these are as old as Goodwill, Salvation Army, etc. Non profits often have a difficult time in the capitalization of these projects as well as having the business moxy to be reasonablly assured that it won't bring down the non-profit mission around it. Foundations could leverage private capital and business technical assistance to start up these projects. I believe that the non-profit social services sector is at a tipping point. The successful non profit of the future will have to get close to being a three legged stool of governmental contracts, social entreprenuerships, and philanthrophy. Foundations like the Ford Family and the Northwest Area Trust have taken some very bold initiatives. I would like to see more dialogues like these between the foundations and non-profits to look for innovative partnerships.

Thank you for stimulating a conversation on sustainability in the non-profit sector and the role foundations should play.

First, it should be noted that the non-profit sector was created by private philanthropy and is heavily dependent upon having a strong private, for profit sector for its continued sustainability as this provides tax dollars, corporate profits and individual wealth -- the sources of our primary funding streams.

As was pointed out by another writer, foundation resources, while very important, are a smaller portion of the total money that goes to non-profits. Since this is the case, it is very important that foundations target their resource very wisely to create the highest level of common good.

Priorities for foundation funding, not necessarily in order, should include:
1) Capacity building designed to strengthen organizational self-sufficiency and efficiency
2) Targeted social advocacy/policy development
3) Stimulation and support of program innovation, increased effectiveness and increased access to services

Ongoing operating, capital improvement, and/or "seed corn"/start-up funds may be allocated in all of these priorities.

I've just read through the discussion, and didn't find a magic answer yet. I see no one has mentioned multiple year funding. Sometimes we do want to start innovative programs, and do intend to see them stay. Multiple year funding is one way to help with this endeavor.
But general support is where all the cuts have come. We're making an effort to change our funding percentage from so much reliance on grants to more community support - but as a previous comment said - there are a lot of hands out to the public.
I would like to see Meyer or Ford sponsor a Social Enterprise series for southern Oregon. Maybe this is where merger could happen, as several non-profits share the burden and return of a business enterprise?

Take the example of, Portland Parks and Recreation is casting off a number of its sites, asking for "increased community support" to save them. Isn't government funding for community services supposed to be the ultimate in "community support", because everyone is paying for it? As programs move from government to non-profit and, as suggested in this blog, to for-profit, their services become more exclusive and less community-based by necessity.

Is it reasonable for non-profit programs to depend on foundations and for foundations to expect the programs to be self-sustaining in x number of years? I wish that the answer could be a simple one. It is not. Out of necessity we depend on foundations and have learned to present ourselves well and try new and creative ways of seeking funding. With our program, the goal of being self-sustaining is very unlikely because over ½ of our clients live below the poverty level. We, like many other organizations, are embarking on a journey to find ways to become the hybrid nonprofit/for-profit organization because we see it as the only way open to us given the current political climate. In this period of uncertainty we look to private foundations to help our program survive while we learn quickly how to create a for-profit side business to support our work. This involves juggling a lot of balls at once! The investment in start-up funding for the profit portion needs to be larger than has been recognized by the programs themselves and grantors. Most businesses take 5 years or more to show a profit and the non-profits that are struggling just to keep programs open would need additional funds over what is needed for operating costs to develop the business and get it in the black and providing income. The new world of non-profits may soon require marketing and business degrees. All of that said, the most difficult thing as a director is keeping the mission of the non-profit program I am trying to protect clear and the clients we are serving as the top priority when I have to spend so much of my time finding or developing funding sources.

Foundations need to do a better job of supporting government social service programs instead of acting like they are a superior alternative. Foundations have fostered the erosion of government programs by allowing the public to believe that the private sector can best address our social problems when the fact is that the private has never adequately addressed the social needs of this country.