What I Wish I Had Learned: Conversations With Funders
May 14, 2008 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers held a dialogue with experienced grantmakers about lessons they wish they had learned as they began their journey in becoming knowledgeable leaders in the sector. Following up on a similar session last year, the program offered more advice and perspectives from seasoned funders. Some of the topics discussed included working with internal foundation politics, developing your career, and finding ways besides grants to help non-profit organizations, such as by helping organizations make important connections.

The Peer Network for New Grantmakers hosted a session on What I Wish I Knew When I Started: Reflections from Seasoned Funders. The session was introduced by Frank Baiocchi, Polk Bros. Foundation, and Sara Melillo, McCormick Tribune Foundation, and featured contributions from Consuella Brown, Woods Fund of Chicago; Deborah Bennett, Polk Bros. Foundation; and Mae Hong, Field Foundation of Illinois.

A panel of experienced grantmakers shared thoughts on their professional development and lessons they had learned in philanthropy. Discussion during the session covered the following topics:

• As the philanthropic sector becomes more professionalized, professional development opportunities have increased. Published books and articles can help grantmakers learn both about social issues as well as technical grantmaking issues, and programs such as the Grantmaking School or the Donors Forum's Grantmakers Institute can provide useful training. Affinity groups provide grantmakers the chance to share information with peers who deal with their same issue areas, and national affinity groups allow grantmakers a chance to see how philanthropic work proceeds in other parts of the nation and learn from staff members from a range of foundations.
• People, not money, solve problems. Grantmaking can be most effective when funders find the right partners to promote social change; simply making grants in a certain issue area is, by itself, not enough to generate the needed change.
• Grantmakers need to understand they are part of two groups, their "team" at work and their "tribe" (which can be defined in many ways, including by gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, and spirituality). Each group will hold grantmakers accountable for their decisions in different ways.
• Relationships are a crucial part of grantmaking. Relationships with board members can help shape how recommendations from staff are received, relationships with other grantmakers can form the basis for collaborative efforts, and relationships with grantees can determine how open and honest grantees are with the information they share. Building these relationships is not always easy due to the various power dynamics involved. Leadership transitions change relationships within a foundation, and grantmakers need to be prepared to adapt to new circumstances and personalities when different executive directors or board members join an organization.
• Grantmakers have to learn the particular culture of their foundation and understand how much or how little advocacy and emotional involvement they can bring to their role of reviewing and recommending grant proposals. Inevitably, grantmakers will have to be associated with grants they themselves may not make individually but are approved by their board; however, this can work both ways, as board members might also approve some grants they would not otherwise make except for the recommendation of foundation staff.
• Grantmakers may need how to learn how to work with their organization to make needed institutional changes. Becoming too caught up in past mistakes generally does not help an organization change; instead, funders can explore ways to move forward positively and expand the limits of what a foundation can do and what type of grants it is willing to make.
• Helping board members understand some of the details of issues a foundation faces can be difficult, especially if a board member wants immediate results from a long-term project. Sometimes a site visit helps give board members a better understanding of what an organization does. Books and articles can also help give board members the background information they may need.
  

Peer Network for New Grantmakers: Collaboration
April 3, 2008 - Most funding collaborations begin by identifying a problem. Whether the aim is to target funding to communities or issues that are underrepresented by philanthropic dollars, or to join together to work on the biggest social problems, collaboration is an increasingly popular way for funding organizations to work for social change. The Peer Network for New Grantmakers presented a discussion on the many ways grantmakers can use collaboration to further funding priorities. Examples of collaborations discussed at the session include collaboration between foundations and grantees, affinity groups and re-granting organizations, public-private partnerships, and internal collaboration between program areas.

The Peer Network for New Grantmakers held a session on Collaboration: Working Inside and Outside Your Organization. The session was introduced by Meg Leary, The Irving Harris Foundation, and Jessica Brown, Lloyd A. Fry Foundation, and featured contributions from Evette Cardona, Polk Bros. Foundation; Marcia Festen, Arts Work Fund; and Phyllis Glink, The Irving Harris Foundation.

Collaborative efforts can help funders add value to their grantmaking activities. Collaborations may involve other funders, grantee organizations, public bodies, or a combination of these groups. With advance planning, funders can establish collaborations that put all parties on an equal footing and that incorporate definitions of success along with measurements of the collaborative effort. These collaborations can provide opportunities for education, broader effectiveness in grantmaking, and leveraging grant funds into larger benefits.

In discussing the benefits of collaborative efforts, panelists mentioned the following:

• Collaborations provide organizations with an interest in a particular grantmaking area a way to extend their reach. Different collaborative funding efforts in the Chicago area, including efforts focused on early childhood education, arts organizations, organizations supporting immigrants and refugees, and organizations run by and benefiting the Latino population, have allowed multiple funders to work together and have more of an overall impact in a specific area than they would have had alone.
• Collaborations provide opportunities for funders to learn more about the area covered by the collaboration. Some funders can use collaborative funding efforts to enter an area that is new to them. Through the collaboration, they not only gain access to the knowledge of other funders involved in the effort, but they can also use the collaboration to convene grantees and learn from their experiences.
• Collaborations provide leverage opportunities that funders may not have on their own. Sometimes this can come through matching grants available from public or private bodies; a single foundation may not be able to come up with a complete match on their own, but a group of funders can. Other times, this leverage can be used to build public-private partnerships and encourage the government to direct funding to new areas.
• Collaborative efforts often provide the most benefits when the collaboration has its own staff. Staff members can ensure the collaboration is living up to its performance goals while also helping collaborative participants understand their continuing role in the process.

Panelists also provided the following advice for increasing collaborative effectiveness and overcoming the challenges collaborations sometimes present:

• Collaborators should be clear on the goals of the collaboration right from the beginning.
• Collaborators should be on an equal footing throughout the process.
• It often helps for collaborations to have a separate identity and mailing address from all of the involved participants. Fiscal agents, including the Donors Forum, can be used for this.
  

Legal Issues in Grantmaking
February 7, 2008 - What are the legal issues involved in making grants? What should grantmakers know about paperwork requirements, IRS codes, fiscal agents, and other matters? How does the law treat different types of foundations? This discussion covered topics that can help grantmakers better understand the legal environment in which they operate.
The Peer Network for New Grantmakers hosted a session on Legal Issues in Grantmaking. The discussion was introduced by Jane Jasek, American Dental Association Foundation, Frank Baiocchi, Polk Bros. Foundation, and Susan Clark, Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation, and featured contributions from Nathaniel Sack, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Knowing how the law affects the activities of private foundations can help grantmaking organizations avoid legal difficulties and significant fines. By understanding the basic concepts of the law and by consulting attorneys on complicated issues, grantmakers can help their organizations avoid trouble.

The session covered the following areas: Expenditures by private foundations that the IRS considers taxable (taxes can include a sizeable excise tax levied on both the amount of the expenditure and on the foundation managers who oversaw the expenditure); the types of organizations private foundations may fund without drawing penalties; and how private foundations can avoid conflicts of interest.

There are five types of expenditures that are considered taxable by the IRS, meaning private foundations should avoid them. They are:

• Expenditures made to influence legislation (lobbying);
• Expenditures made to directly or indirectly influence a political campaign;
• Any grant made for non-charitable purposes;
• Grants to ineligible organizations; and
• Grants to ineligible individuals.

To determine if an organization is eligible to receive a grant, grantmakers should obtain a copy of their determination letter and then check IRS Publication 78 to ensure the determination letter is still current. This process became more complicated with the passage of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which defined certain types of supporting organizations (that is, organizations whose sole purpose is to support another organization) as ineligible for grants. An attorney can help grantmakers understand what makes particular organizations ineligible and why.

Grantmakers have options available if they wish to give money to an ineligible organization. One is to give the organization funds to be used for a charitable purpose, and then exercise expenditure responsibility over that money. This includes conducting a pre-grant inquiry into how the money will be used, obtaining a written commitment from the grantee organization describing how the money will be spent, and making sure the grantee organization provides annual reports on how the money is used until it is all spent.

Alternately, grantmakers may wish to work with a fiscal agent, which is a charitable organization that receives funds on behalf of another organization and provides oversight as to how it is spent. The fiscal agent cannot act just as a pass-through organization, but must show genuine involvement in monitoring how the money is spent.

Conflict of interest and self-dealing laws exist with the intent of making sure money that has been designated for charitable use is not turned into a vehicle for private gain. Self-dealing laws forbid private foundations from entering into business relationships (including loans, leases, purchases, and sales) with disqualified individuals and organizations, who are defined as individuals involved in running the foundation, their family members, and businesses in which they hold an ownership stake of 35 percent or more.

Many organizations have adopted conflict of interest policies that go beyond the national self-dealing laws. The IRS does not require organizations to have conflict of interest statements, but there is a question on the form for organizations requesting 501(c)3 status that asks if the organization has a conflict of interest policy and requests an explanation if such a policy is not in place. Additionally, while the penalties are not as harsh as the national laws, Illinois law requires foundation directors to recuse themselves from votes involving prospective grantees with which they are involved.

There are some questions about what private foundations can and cannot accept from grantee organizations and what private foundations can offer to other organizations. The lines on these issues are not always clear, and what is or is not allowable changes based on the circumstances. For example, it would generally be acceptable for a grantee organization to buy a foundation officer a meal in the course of a site visit or other business; however, if a corporate foundation buys a table at an event, corporate officers should likely not receive seats at that table as a gift or benefit.

Beyond the Award: Before and After the Review Cycle
October 18, 2007 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers hosted a conversation entitled Beyond the Award: Before and After the Review Cycle. The discussion was introduced and facilitated by Lindsay Alvis, McCormick Tribune Foundation, and Kandace Thomas, The Irving Harris Foundation.

Different foundations have different methods of relating to grantees, and some of this variety can be directly correlated to their approach to grantmaking. Foundations that tend toward a responsive orientation may have a less formalized relationship with grantees than foundations who have adopted a more strategic approach. Additionally, the amount of grantees a foundation has can shape their relationship; at some foundations, staff may not have enough time to perform detailed follow-up activities with their grantees and may not even require an end-of-the-year report. On the other hand, some foundations like to be regularly updated about their grantees' activities and try to develop a closer working partnership with grantee organizations. Foundations have to be careful, though, to maintain the proper balance in their relationship with grantees so that they are being helpful without overwhelming the grantees or overloading them with reporting work.

Participants also discussed the merits of building relationships between individuals who are part of grantor and grantee organizations as compared to building relationships between the organizations by having different people within each organization work with each other at various times. One advantage of the latter approach is it provides better institutional memory after personnel changes, but it also may be off-putting to grantees who want to know which particular staff person they should approach with comments or concerns. Some grantee organizations, however, have responded positively when they have multiple people in a foundation who understand the grantee organization's background and history.

One of the challenges of the grantor/grantee relationship is knowing how to say "no" to certain proposals, especially if an organization had been a previous grantee. Sometimes grantee organizations can be prepared in advance for a discontinuation of funding if a foundation provides extra money or consultation to help them find other sources of funds. At other times, foundations may be able to point applicants to various resources that can help strengthen their organization. On occasion, foundations may even be able to talk to their colleagues about organizations that may not fall under the guidelines of one foundation but could be a better fit with another.

Something that can make it easier to say "no" is having guidelines that help foundations screen which applicants fit into their organizational mission. By stating these guidelines clearly, foundations can have something specific to refer to when communicating their decisions to the applicants. Many foundations choose to use the telephone instead of the mail to deliver specific information to applicants about why their application did not succeed. On occasion, foundations may have to say "no" to organizations if the applicant does not match well with the foundation's guiding principles, although participants said such instances were relatively uncommon.

Foundation staff may be contacted by various friends and acquaintances hoping to secure funding for particular organizations. Having a policy in place that defines how the foundation deals with potential conflicts of interest can provide valuable guidance in these circumstances.

Maximizing Your Professional Involvement
June 14, 2007 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers hosted a discussion on Maximizing Your Professional Involvement. The discussion was introduced and facilitated by Frank Baiocchi, Polk Bros Foundation, and Lindsay Alvis, McCormick Tribune Foundation.

The session provided participants the opportunity to share experiences and ideas about what is important to them and what resources they have found to be helpful in their ongoing professional development. The ideas and thoughts they shared included the following:

- The participants often had particularly good experiences with programs that could have helped them at some point in their lives. For example, participants who had been involved in the arts often showed an affinity toward programs supporting and encouraging artists; funders who had seen the benefit of being exposed to diverse groups of people often had good experiences with programs promoting cultural diversity.
-Participants enjoyed the opportunity to see firsthand how programs operate, and they were often interested in increasing those opportunities.
-Different size grants bring their own benefits and difficulties. Very large grants can have a significant impact in a single issue area, but such grants can require significant monitoring and follow-up; some smaller grants, by contrast, may be able to be distributed without board approval. While this means a foundation can move quickly to respond to needs or issues as they arise, these grants may not have the same impact as a larger grant.
- Networks that bring funders with shared interests together to exchange ideas and find ways to collaborate can be very helpful. These networks include other member issue groups sponsored by the Donors Forum, groups gathered to exchange information on topics like early childhood, and groups of young people who work in non-profit organizations.
- Participants mentioned several sources of information, including daily or weekly e-mail news digests, that may provide useful information about a particular topic or about the field as a whole. Some of these include:
-The Stanford Social Innovation Review (www.ssireview.org).
-Grantcraft (www.grantcraft.org).
-The Chronicle of Philanthropy (www.philanthropy.org).
- Participants discussed ways to help organizations who may have been turned down for a grant. Funding capacity- or skill-building activities can be one possible way to help emerging community leaders besides providing direct grants. Maintaining a relationship with a non-profit organization and referring them to other funders or organizations that may be useful resources can also help. However, the non-profit organization must bear some of the responsibility for maintaining the relationship, and funders cannot reasonably be expected to make referrals to every organization that contacts them.

Reviewing Proposals: Case Study and Peer Exchange
March 22, 2007 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers hosted a session on Reviewing Proposals: Case Study and Peer Exchange. The discussion was introduced by Sara Melillo, McCormick Tribune Foundation, and Kandace Thomas, Irving Harris Foundation, and facilitated by Mark Murray, Field Foundation of Illinois.

Evaluating proposals means looking at a variety of factors, including the strength of an organization's programs, the capacity of staff and leadership, and how the proposal fits with a foundation's overall priorities and available funds.

Participants were asked to reflect on questions that might affect their grantmaking decisions. These questions included:

1) When you think of philanthropy, does it act from the trenches or on the sidelines? Can it function in both aspects? Should it?
2) When you hear about the needs of nonprofit organizations, does your emotional reaction to their issues affect your ability to judge their programs?
3) When evaluating programs, does your assessment rely solely on quantitative data?
4) When an organization is doing well serving its constituency through quality programs but doing poorly in other aspects of the organization, do you give weight to one aspect of the organization over the other?
5) Is it your role to present only facts or to follow your gut feelings?
6) Has your experience in philanthropy been positive?

Participants took part in exercises that helped them think about the kinds of experiences that make philanthropy unique and the different ways to relate these experiences. They also reviewed a sample application from a nonprofit organization and discussed its strengths, weaknesses, and their thoughts on funding the organization.

Participants also shared information about their organization's grantmaking procedures and requirements. The peer exchange provided an opportunity to see different methods of setting priorities and establishing the eligibility of potential grantees.

What I Wish I Knew When I Started: Reflections From Seasoned Grantmakers
January 18, 2007 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers hosted a discussion on What I Wish I Knew When I Started: Reflections of Seasoned Funders. The discussion was introduced by Frank Baiocchi, Polk Bros. Foundation, and featured contributions from Michelle Boone, Joyce Foundation, Evette Cardona, Polk Bros. Foundation, and Matthew Blakely, Motorola Foundation.

While people arrive in the philanthropic sector by different paths (whether they intended to travel in that direction or not), there are often common elements that bring them to philanthropy. The chance to make a difference in communities, the opportunity to be involved in areas like community development or the arts, and the ability to support organizations that are doing good work are elements that pull people into the field.

The various routes people travel, though, sometimes mean people in philanthropy are not always prepared for the various circumstances they will face. In this discussion, experienced funders offered the following tips and pieces of advice for those getting started in the field.

- Writing and presentation skills are tremendously useful in philanthropic work, and classes are available to help people hone their skills. Being able to clearly present information about a grant proposal to a foundation's board while laying out the reasons for funding that proposal can make interactions with the board proceed smoothly. Additionally, writing skills can help when communicating with existing or potential grantee organizations.
- Courses in finances and nonprofit management can also be useful if foundation staff do not have such courses in their background.
- The Donors Forum provides great opportunities for professional development and networking. The wide variety of topics covered by different peer networks and member issue groups offers extensive knowledge and support to new grantmakers.
- Foundation staff will often find plenty of people and organizations asking for their time in all kinds of settings. Staff members need to be able to set limits and to only commit to external activities, such as board membership, when they have enough time to do a good job. They have to be able to say no to some requests to keep themselves from becoming overextended.
- While saying no can be important, serving on the boards of non-profit organizations and understanding their development struggles can provide n important perspective on the dynamic between grantors and grantees.
- Being open and communicative with grantees and potential grantees can help develop your professional network and provide knowledge of developments in the field. Listening to their ideas can be helpful, and asking them questions that help them develop their ideas can be more useful than foundation staff simply telling grantees what a program should look like.
- There is a degree of security in philanthropic jobs due to the stability of foundations' endowments, but since it is a small field the opportunities for advancement can be limited. Additionally, some people have found philanthropy to be confining and responsive instead of creative; they may choose to move to the grantee side, where they can develop the programs they envision and find ways to raise the money that is out there.

Each foundation provided a speaker to give participants an overview of their annual funding amount, allocation of funds, and history of the organization. Participants utilized the opportunities to ask questions, and took a short tour of each office.

Speakers included Paul Botts of the Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelly Foundation, Phyllis Glink of the Irving Harris Foundation, Evette Cardona of the Polk Bros. Foundation, and Donald Cooke of the McCormick Tribune Foundation.

Peer Network Panel * Learning From Our Grantees
April 20, 2006 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers hosted a discussion on Learning from our Grantees. Introduced and facilitated by Agnes Meneses, Alphawood Foundation, and Gauri Pal, Grand Victoria Foundation, the meeting featured presentations from Janna Burch, the Goodman Theatre, Kate Lorenz, Hyde Park Art Center, and Frank Pullen, the Journeymen Theater Company.

In many aspects of the funder-grantee relationship, the key to avoiding potential difficulties and future problems lies in open and honest communication in both directions. According to the experiences shared in the meeting, grantees experience the most frustration when communication channels are not open or are muddled. Specific examples of this frustration include:

• Not receiving a clear explanation for the decision to not offer or not renew a grant. While grantees understand that funding is limited, clear communication helps them understand why they received a rejection, particularly when dealing with sources that had previously funded them.
• Dealing with forms or reports whose questions are complicated or overly detailed. While the grantees generally expressed considerable willingness to communicate with funders and keep them updated about their progress, overly burdensome reports can be a pressing encumbrance on their time, especially when the grantee knows of simpler ways to convey information about their work.
• Dealing with the abrupt departure of a foundation contact. Not only does this mean that the grantee will likely have to educate a new contact about the work they are performing, but it could also leave them in a state of uncertainty regarding pending grant proposals.

Having board members of a foundation and board members of an organization talk about the organization and its programs without passing on the details of the conversation to program staff, who could very well need to know what was discussed.
Open communication in the other direction, from grantees to funders, is important as well. Funders mentioned the following times when communication is especially important:

• When the grantee is dealing with difficulties. A funder would prefer to hear about a grantee's problems first hand rather than read about them in the newspaper, or discover one day that the grantee organization has shut its doors. Participants said they understand that program parameters and activities often change as programs move forward, and they are willing to work with grantees to make necessary adaptations. Such adaptations cannot be made, however, if the funders are not informed of potential problems.
• When a grant application, particularly a renewal application, has been rejected. Some participants said it raises a red flag if a grantee doesn't call them after a rejection has been issued; they want to talk to grantees about the reason for the decision, and they want grantees to work toward overcoming any obstacles that might prevent them from obtaining funding-which they cannot do unless they understand the reasons for the rejection.
  

Due Diligence in the Grant Reporting Process
March 2, 2006 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers hosted a discussion on Due Diligence in the Grant Reporting Process. Introduced and facilitated by Sara Melillo, McCormick Tribune Foundation, and Lindsay Alvis, McCormick Tribune Foundation, the meeting featured an exchange by each of the participants on their grant reporting procedures.

The meeting began by directing participants to the Donors Forum booklet on Illinois Nonprofit Principles and Best Practices, pointing out that the meeting would focus on number ten: "Grantmaking organizations establish, follow, and clearly communicate processes for receiving, reviewing, and acting on grant applications and for monitoring and evaluating grants made."

Foundations can adjust their reporting requirements based on the number of staff available, the number of grantees, and the average size of the grants disbursed. A small grant generally should not have reporting requirements that consume a large portion of the grant money the organization receives, while a foundation might want to more closely monitor the progress of a large grant with more regular reports. The ratio of staff to grantees can determine how involved staff can be with individual reports.

Many foundations have found that, as they examine their reporting requirements, it can be very beneficial to tie reporting requirements into the application procedure. This can be done in many ways, including:

• Drafting evaluation questions that have direct ties to questions asked on the application. For example, the application may ask what goals the grantee has for the project and what deliverables they believe will be realized; follow-up reports should then contain questions that specifically ask about those goals and deliverables.
• For certain grantees, the year-end report and an application for renewal of a grant can be tied together as a single submission, reducing the amount of paperwork they need to submit.
• Using similar forms for applications and year-end reporting can ensure that grantees do not need to learn a new system for the final reports.
• Making the submission of the final report a more interactive process with foundation staff can both relieve the stress on the grantees and help grantees who may not have extensive experience in writing evaluations put together a useful document.
  When creating an evaluation process, foundations should keep in mind what kind of results they want to see from the process-one participant referred to the idea of "beginning with the end in mind." This can affect the type of information gathered in the reporting process-some foundation boards may want to see a more statistical presentation, with numbers demonstrating the impact of a grant, while others may prefer more story-based efforts to illustrate a grant's effect. If foundation staff wants information on specific grantee activities (for example, if a grant was made to address a particular organizational problem or concern), they need to make sure they ask the kinds of questions that will elicit that information.

The participants offered the following suggestions and ideas to keep in mind when designing a reporting process:

• Consider directly asking what percentage of board members contribute to the grantee organization, either monetarily or through services, as a way to gain an understanding of the board's activity and involvement with the organization.
• Obtaining regular feedback from grantees can help ensure that the reporting process is helpful and not overly burdensome. Establishing a rapport with grantees can lead to more open and honest feedback and more useful evaluations.
• Foundations could consider partnering with other foundations that have similar goals and possibly overlapping grantees to develop a unified reporting form to simplify the lives of grantee organizations.
• The regional scope of a foundation's activities affects the reporting options available; having most grantees concentrated in a single community or city allows for more options, like meetings between grantees, than are available for statewide or international grantees.
  

Mid-year Review
January 13, 2006 - Agnes Meneses opened the meeting and gave a brief overview of the agenda. She asked members for introductions and a brief history of their experience leading them to work in philanthropy. Members discussed programs held to date this year, and revisited the plans set last summer. The group decided they would like the Donors Forum to provide a brief, 15-minute orientation to the Forum's services at the beginning or end of one of the programs. Members agreed that they would not convene for Civic Reflection this year. After discussion, the group agreed to plan the following programs.

1. Late February 2006
Due Diligence in Reporting
This peer exchange will focus on sharing the various reporting and grant monitoring approaches that foundations use. Agnes, Sara and Lindsay will work together to collect PNNG members' reporting requirements. Donors Forum staff will distribute them before the meeting.
Organizers: Sara Melillo, Lindsay Alvis, Gauri Pal and Agnes Meneses

2. April 2006
Dialogue with Development Staff
PNNG will invite a panel of nonprofit development staff and/or program staff for a dialogue about various aspects of building constructive relationships between foundation program officers and nonprofit development/program staff. The focus of the meeting will be to better educate foundation program officers on the multifaceted effort (on the part of the nonprofit organization) that goes into the submission of a proposal and will also address a "code of conduct" for proposal review.

Donors Forum's Illinois Nonprofit Principles and Best Practices can be a relevant source for this session, particularly Principles 8, 9 and 10.
Organizers: Darcy Addison, Alisa Perrotte, Lindsay Alvis, Agnes Meneses and Gauri Pal

3. May / June 2006
Foundation Crawl
PNNG members felt there was great value in visiting other foundation offices and learning about other foundations' grantmaking, and agreed to hold a second Foundation Crawl this year. This crawl will focus on foundations on the east side such as McCormick Tribune Foundation, Chicago Community Trust and Chicago Foundation for Women.
Organizers: Amanda Cage, Lindsay Alvis, Agnes Meneses and Gauri Pal

Foundation Crawl
October 11, 2005 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers hosted a walking tour to four downtown Chicago foundations to meet with foundation staff and learn more about giving philosophies, guidelines and policies. Participants began the day with The Boeing Company, and then visited Prince Charitable Trusts and VNA Foundation, and concluded with lunch at Grand Victoria Foundation.

Participants heard overviews of the diverse types of funding organizations in the Chicago area and the range of strategies they use in their grantmaking. The session helped new funders understand the challenges in how to allocate resources to address the broad scope of funders' interests.

A Dialogue About Non-Funding Assistance
April 27, 2005 - Committee co-chair Jeff Pinzino of the Woods Fund of Chicago, and committee member Elizabeth Cisar of the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation welcomed the attendees and guest speakers: John Bartlett, Metropolitan Tenants Organization; Mariame Kaba, Steans Family Foundation (former staff of Friends of Battered Women and Their Children); and Marvinetta Penn, Global Girls Inc.

Each speaker shared his/her experience receiving non-monetary support for their nonprofit, and the positives and negatives that were associated with it. All agreed that the most valuable support was in having a strong relationship with a grantor. Such a relationship was commonly defined by:

• honest and open communication;
• flexibility from both sides in the grant application and evaluation process;
• strong inter-personal skills by each of the main contacts;
• responsiveness and a sincere concern for each other's organization's best interests;
• opportunities for learning about the nonprofit profession and their specific field;

Many attendees also shared their experiences of what has worked well in the past and which relationships have not been as successful. Many also agreed that further discussion of such issues between grantmakers and grantees would be very helpful for future PNNG programs.

Due Diligence
February 24, 2005 - Jeff Pinzino of the Woods Fund of Chicago and Erin Hallock of the Siragusa Foundation presented a case study on due diligence, using a fictional literacy organization as their example. They gave the attendees a sample letter of inquiry from the literacy organization and asked those present to think of questions they would pose to another foundation that had a relationship with the literacy organization and to the director of the organization itself.

The initial questions from the group focused on the nature and scope of the literacy program, the relative size of some line items in the organization's proposed budget, the organization's other sources of income, and its capacity for future expansion.

Next, participants role-played a phone call to the program manager of a foundation that has funded the literacy organization, obtaining more background about the program and discovering the other foundation's comments and concerns about the organization. Based on the information they received during the phone call, the group came up with additional questions about the literacy organization's plan for growth and how new grant money would be spent.

Questions led to using Donor's Forum of Chicago's "Illinois Nonprofit Principles and Best Practices" in reviewing proposals. Specific best practices can be used to help frame questions about an applicant's governance, management, and programs.

The group then role-played a site visit to the organization, asking the director about the organization's history, the number of people it serves, its existing partnerships with other organizations, and its plan for the future. They discovered that, while the organization's program seems solid, its plans for growth and development are unclear. They also were concerned that for most of its existence the organization received the majority of its funding from a single source.

Part of the group's discussion during the role-play focused on how often different organizations conduct site visits, who they meet with, and how to make the experience more comfortable for the potential grantee.

The attendees then discussed ways to shape a grant to the organization that might increase its development capacity, deciding in the end to fully fund the request while also providing an extra grant to pay for professional development activities. The group discussed ways to present this second grant that would make it seem positive, rather than as a criticism of the organization's development capacities.

Foundation Crawl
October 5, 2004 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers held a program to inform new grantmakers about policy and procedures at four Chicago downtown foundations. Foundation staff discussed how the foundations were created, their current grantees and project initiatives. The foundations visited were: Polk Bros. Foundation, The Steans Family Foundation, The Richard H. Driehaus Foundation, The Woods Fund of Chicago.

Attendees heard the history of each foundation. Foundation grantee lists reflected how each foundation's funding interests differ. Funding strategies discussed revealed comprehensive community initiatives and partnerships with other funding entities. Each foundation highlighted its internal policies and procedures. Foundation staff commented on:

• Important role the audit plays as part of the grant application process
• Site visits
• Information staff submit to their Board of Directors
• Internal policies on past grantees

After the tour, the group held a peer exchange over lunch to reflect on the information they learned about each foundation earlier in the day

The Future of Grantmaking
June 10, 2004 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers hosted a discussion on the future of grantmaking. Rusty Stahl, Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP), discussed the development of EPIP and national trends in the field of philanthropy.

The sector is approaching a huge shift in leadership. Community foundations that participated in a study conducted by The Annie E. Casey Foundation revealed that 55% of their CEO's plan to retire in the next five years. With numbers revealing a strong near-future demand for new leadership, EPIP strives to nurture the next round of philanthropic leaders.

EPIP hopes to support and strengthen the next generation of grantmakers specifically to advance effective social justice philanthropy. EPIP strategies are networking, leadership and advocacy activities. The organization began after recognizing that staff new to the field of philanthropy often felt isolated in their positions. In addition, the new staff members were often not provided an orientation to the field before beginning their new job at the foundation.

The discussion highlighted venture philanthropy, a model based on results-oriented plans, and social justice philanthropy. Program attendees discussed how they thought their foundations reflected characteristics of each type of philanthropy and held a peer exchange on the following questions:

• How do venture philanthropy and/ or social justice philanthropy relate to your work?
• What does staff need to know to lead philanthropy into the future?
• What is the most important lesson learned to leave in the past and/ or take into the future of philanthropy?

The peer exchange highlighted the power struggle between grantees and funders. Attendees emphasized that program officers recognize that their program area funding dollars are not their personal funds to distribute to grantees. Transparency is a current hot topic for discussion in grantmaking and should be continued into the future. Finally, communication between foundations is important to discuss what they are funding and why those decisions support the funding guidelines of the foundation.

Best Practices in Grantmaking
May 6, 2004 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers held a peer exchange on the best practices in grantmaking. Topics included: interpreting foundation guidelines; letters of inquiry; the proposal review process; and decline letters and telephone calls.

Varying degrees of guideline specificity exist among foundations. Some foundations post their guidelines on their web site; others mail guidelines in response to a telephone conversation. Funders find that a 15-minute telephone conversation can be adequate time to determine if an organization falls within the foundation's guidelines.

The invitation process may begin with a letter of inquiry. The letter of inquiry can be an initial screening tool used by foundations to review basic information about the organization. It can be difficult for a foundation to manage letters of inquiry when an applicant is given the option to submit by mail, fax or email.

The proposal review process can be overwhelming. One foundation selected a group of current grantees re-applying to submit a brief proposal, including only the current financials and final report. One foundation uses a proposal rating form to guide its grantmaking decisions.

Program attendees discussed how they handle their personal biases when reviewing proposals. Some foundations have multiple people review the same proposal. One program officer found herself being tougher on the organizations she enjoyed reviewing the most. Another foundation allows space for the program officer to add their opinion on the program in their write-up. Another program officer supports their foundation's policy of revolving program officers to review grantees.

Site visit best practices include:

• Don't ask what is already in the proposal.
• Inform the agency who you would like present in the site visit.
• If you are bringing a co-worker or Board member, let the organization know ahead of time.
• Show up on time or a few minutes early.
• Allow time to see a program in action even if it is not during your normal work hours.
• Remind the agency that the site visit is a time for them to ask questions, too.

Issues can become apparent when one reviews an applicant's financial documents. An audit report should include:

• Current date on financial statements
• Complete document that relates to the table of contents
• A letter has gone to the Board of Directors
• The audit report is signed by the person who completed the audit
• The language "in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards" is mentioned the audit report
• The notes section matches the numbers reported in the body of the audit report.

If the financials are missing from a proposal, some foundations will delay reviewing the proposal until they receive them.

Once a funding decision has been made, foundations inform organizations differently. One foundation calls everyone who submitted a proposal, whether they were declined or granted funding. Another foundation sends a decline letter. Those grantees who are awarded funding might be asked to submit a 6-month review to the foundation. One funder breaks the grant payment in half and hand delivers the payment 6-months through the grant-cycle. This gives the funder an opportunity to stop by the organization and learn about the progress of the program.

Materials distributed included:

1. Primer on Grantmaking
2. Proposals: How to Separate the Good, Bad and the Ugly
3. McCormick Tribune Guidelines

Lessons shared included: program officers are expected to continue professional development. Funders encourage program officers to participate in local and national affinity groups. Non-profit board participation presents itself as an opportunity as a program officer gains experience in philanthropy.

Statistics mentioned in Chicago Philanthropy: A Profile of Grantmaking Profession highlighted how respondents felt about career opportunities in philanthropy and future career moves in the field. Over sixty percent of respondents felt that there was not a career path available to them in within their foundation.

Career paths are varied. Future employment opportunities may include consulting for foundations. Lessons learned through experience in grantmaking could be applied to future careers in non-profit fundraising or development. One might start a non-profit to address identified gaps in service. Other career avenues included: government; academia; and corporate giving.

Peer Network for New Grantmakers Mid-Year Review
February 4, 2004 - The group discussed the FY04 programs to date. The group agreed The Risky Business of Grantmaking was a very stimulating and well-attended program. When planning future co-sponsored programs, the co-chairs suggested considering the group's priorities. Programs should be focused on the experiences of a new grantmaker. Members present wanted to learn more about what to expect and how to handle the ethical challenges of a new program officer.

The Holiday Social was held at Bin 36 and was fun for those who attended. Robin Dixon, co-chair, reminded the group that networking is a member benefit of PNNG. Some members commented that after work social gatherings are hard to attend. Suggestions were made to alternate networking events over breakfast and lunch.

The group discussed the national affinity group Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP). EPIP is a new national network for new grantmakers across the country. It is developing training materials and resources for those new to the field. The group agreed to affiliate with EPIP because of the opportunities a nationwide network could provide.

PNNG members concluded the meeting with a peer exchange on the ethics of accepting complimentary tickets to a grantee event, sharing information when you are on the Board of an organization, and discussing organizations that are financially stressed.

Comments included:

• A program officer should never feel obligated to attend an event. If it is a current grantee, have the foundation buy a table at the event or buy your own tickets. It could be a great opportunity for the organization to shine in front of their funder. Attending could provide a better understanding of that organization. If your foundation does not allow you to accept complimentary tickets, be proactive in informing applicants and grantees about your foundation's policy.
• It seems appropriate to share information that is available on the internet.
• Many not-for-profit organizations are experiencing a deficit. One member asks for a plan on how the organization will address the issue. Members are seeing organizations revisit their mission and cut programs that are not aligned with it.

Immigration 101: What Every Funder Needs To Know
January 1, 2004 - Alice Cottingham, Girl's Best Friend Foundation, led the Peer Network for New Grantmakers and the Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees in a general overview of immigrant and refugee basics.

Immigrant agencies, terms and definitions, and local and state information were topics included in a quiz distributed to program attendees. Other issues of discussion included immigration and refugee policy and anti-immigration sentiment in the United States.

No other city in the United States outnumbers Chicago in the amount of immigrant and refugee coalitions. Religious organizations play a major role in many immigrant and refugee communities. As demographics in a certain community change, organizations will identify immigrant and refugee needs to be addressed.

• Suburban Immigrants Have New Ally, by Natasha Korecki
• Patriot Act Uniting Ethnic Minorities; Rise in Profiling Told at Hearings, by John Biemer and Manya Brachear
• Anti-Immigration is Anti-American Wake Up Sheet
• Comprehensive Immigration Reform: It's Time To Walk The Walk
• Immigration 101: Immigrant and Immigration Resources Sheet
• National Immigration Law Center Reflects on President Bush's Immigration Reform Proposal: A Compelling Vision But a Seriously Flawed Proposal.
  

Peer Exchange
September 24, 2003 - The Peer Exchange explored different types of foundations and giving programs and how they operate. A social gathering was held after the meeting.

Funding To the Beat of Different Drummers
May 20, 2003 - The network hosted a panel discussion that explored the grantmaking practices and principles found in private foundations, family foundations and corporate giving programs. Moderated by the network's co-chairs, Toya Nash from Grand Victoria Foundation and Tim Phillips from Peoples Energy Corporation, the panelists included: Robin Dixon, Girl's Best Friend Foundation, Jesse Kane, GATX Corporation and Peter Handler, The Richard H. Driehaus Foundation.

Immigrant Landscape in Chicago
February 20, 2003 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers hosted Alice Cottingham for a presentation on the immigrant landscape in the region. During this informal session, Ms. Cottingham, formerly of the Fund for Immigrants and Refugees and now executive director of Girl's Best Friend Foundation, reviewed some common and not-so-common facts about immigrants and immigration in the United States and Chicago. By highlighting facts, such as there are currently 10 million undocumented immigrants in the United States and over 400,000 in Illinois, she emphasized that services for immigrant populations can not exclude those who are in the country illegally. Her overview also included an explanation of the new Department of Homeland Security and the effects the dissolution of the INS will have on local immigrants.

Understanding Nonprofit Financials
November 15, 2002 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers hosted a workshop on understanding and analyzing nonprofit financial statements. Merril Prager, former director of finance and administration for the Gaylord & Dorothy Donnelley Foundation led the program that consisted of an introduction to general financial statement terminology and a review of sample statements. Included in the morning's session was an explanation of the difference between a Statement of Condition -- reflects financial standing for a particular point in time; Statement of Activities -- shows a comparative view of how an organization stands; Statement of Changes in Cash Flow -- is only seen within an audit; and others, like the Statement of Functional Activities -- covers specific program areas. She outlined the difference between as audit and a statement and highlighted key language to search for that indicates the financial health (or weakness) of an organization.

New Peer Exchange
October 17, 2002 - The Peer Network for New Grantmakers met for a New Peer Exchange Program. Participants shared their individual backgrounds, and the funding priorities of their respective foundations. Following the meeting, the group met for an informal social gathering at the Elephant & Castle.

Chicago's Immigrant Landscape
June 14, 2002 - Alice Cottingham, former executive director of the Fund for Immigrants and Refugees, lead this new grantmaker orientation to Chicago's immigrant landscape that focused, in particular, on key risks, opportunities and challenges in rights, policies, funding and services for immigrants and refugees.

A Mock Proposal Review
April 12, 2002 - Representing a broad range of grantmaking programs, Iris Krieg from Iris Krieg and Associates, Richard Turner from Peoples Energy and Angel Ysaguirre from the Illinois Humanities Council reviewed a series of mock proposals. Despite differences in expertise and differences in respective grantmaking programs, the panelists shared similar financial, staff capacity and project integrity concerns.

Reading and Re-reading Financial Statements
January 25, 2002 - Merril Prager, director of finance and administration at the Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation and a former CPA, led a workshop on analyzing and understanding nonprofit financials. The tutorial was led using financial statement from three area nonprofits. Merril focused significant attention on the statement of financial position and the statement of activities.

Why Do You Do What You Do?
November 28, 2001 - The Center for Urban Research and Learning at Loyola University recently released "Chicago Philanthropy: A Profile of the Grantmaking Profession." This study contains a detailed summary of the perspectives and opinions of over 90 local grantmakers who participated in a focus group discussion. Louis Delgado, primary researcher on this project, discussed this report through the lens of newcomers to the field. Why do we do what we do? And how can we be more effective? Chicago Philanthropy: A Profile of the Grantmaking Profession is available on-line.

Back to New Grantmakers main page.