From The Field J U N E 2 0 1 6 Developing the Culture for Long-Term Success KIM MOORE President, United Methodist Health Ministry Fund president should secure a firm board understanding that this As part of GIH’s ongoing work to support new conversion is the message program staff deliver and implement without foundations, we invited Kim Moore, founding President exception. of United Health Ministry Fund, to share insights and advice on starting a health foundation. INPUT FOR A LEARNING ORGANIZATION While protecting the decisionmaking process, the foundation must simultaneously develop approaches and a will for seeking A ll foundations will have a culture to build from or, in some cases, overcome due to the early actions of the broad input about problems, solutions, and opportunities charter crew of staff and board. A foundation’s basic from sectors of health and social service work. This ongoing cultural underpinnings begin to take shape during the start-up task is neither easy nor primarily accomplished through period, a time filled with numerous practical issues consuming community needs assessment. Rather, it requires intentional the time and energy of its people. But the really important convening of small groups and key informants (especially work for lasting success as a high-performing philanthropy frontline and community-based leaders) and broad exposure will more likely occur through development of the right to groups and initiatives in the relevant geographic area. organizational culture over the early months and years of The door to foundation program staff should be as open foundation operation. Here are a few ideas about developing as possible. For the high-performing philanthropy, these a positive, long-term philanthropic culture that can attract, activities are conducted with, and reflect, the foundation’s recognize, and invest in good people with good ideas. sense of stewardship and its desire to learn and understand the realities facing communities. There is a genuine intent to ZONE FOR BEST DECISIONMAKING engage not only respected leaders but also diverse “unusual suspects” in an input role to impact immediate strategic The ability to define and pursue a foundation’s mission, plans. This sets the stage for later advisory boards and which grows out of the best thinking and collegial passion of nonboard taskforce members to engage with the foundation the foundation staff and board, depends greatly on creation in its work. of a conflict-free zone for independent decisionmaking. Many conversion foundations have at least one external OVERBOARD FAIRNESS constituency, such as the source of the funds, that wants to exert ongoing influence on the philanthropy’s decisions. “Fairness” must not run amok. With each grant I worried Sometimes these interested constituencies are given board about setting precedent, and frequently we avoided highly roles in charter documents (presenting different challenges attractive individual grants because of potential “demand” for and opportunities), but I am focused on the problem of more like that one. “If we do this one, we will have to do one extra-board influence. Strong conflict-of-interest policies for several other communities.” But wait! If a foundation enacted very early represent one important step in moving decides to fund one safety net clinic, it is not required—by toward appropriate decisionmaking processes. Foundation fairness, law, or otherwise—to fund multiple similar staff and board must personally model nonconflicted organizations for the same purpose. New foundations can behavior exceeding the formal policy, even to the point of reasonably communicate that they test different approaches removing personal charitable beneficiaries and interests from and may select one or two particular groups from a subset of consideration for a reasonable period. Outside of board organizations; after all, the new foundation is still learning and committee meetings, members should exercise great before making larger investments. It is also important, restraint in their advocacy relative to individual applicants. beginning with the first grant and through a consistent format, Who an applicant knows is less important than what that to capture learnings and share those learnings throughout the applicant is prepared to accomplish. The foundation organization. POINT OF THE PROCESS form of matching grants, co-funding, or parallel funding but also means application of grantee assets, in-kind contributions Strict application of process rules, such as in government of third parties, bridges to sustainable funding, policy and grant competitions, may seem fair, but is that really the path practice changes, etc. The fundamental leveraging question is: to finding the best opportunities for investment? Do those How do you get more than one dollar’s worth of “good” for rules truly create a fair field of consideration for all, or do they the dollar you spend? The extent of that benefit—tangible bias the field toward larger and better-resourced organizations? and intangible—beyond your own money is the amount of An incomplete application may be discarded, and that is fair. leveraging and a critical factor in the benefit of the potential But did that missing IRS letter, provided a day later, really make the proposal a bad opportunity? The long-term attitude grant award. of the foundation about whether the grant process is a SUSTAINABILITY—A KEY DIFFERENTIATOR competition for winners and losers—or a process for finding the best opportunities—is being formed with those early In close association with leveraging is sustainability, frequently decisions concerning the importance of grading grant papers. understood as the continuation of an activity beyond the grant Foundations should at least be intentional when weighing money in the nearly exact form of operation paid for by the the pluses and minuses of strict competition rules. grant money. A more nuanced view is that sustainable projects have elements that survive postgrant, producing material RULES OUT OF BOUNDS benefits previously achieved with the funding. For example, a Many new foundations start out with a laundry list of project hiring two persons to conduct training of community rules and limitations that appear to reflect thoughtful health workers is “sustained” in one sense of the term so long considerations about how money is invested. More realistically, as those trained workers remain employed in their roles. these serve as a frontline winnowing tool against the expected Advocates may be hired to work on a particular piece of deluge of grant requests. This foundation does NOT fund staff, legislation and achieve the goal of implemented law. The ongoing operations, buildings, equipment, alcohol, advocacy, policy put into place by that legislation continues postgrant mental health, individual health services, rent, etc. Except for even though funding for the advocates ceases. It is important legal restrictions (political activity, propaganda, lobbying, to define with the grant recipient from the beginning what etc.) these lists should form the grist for a good comedy sustainability is expected, to provide funding and assistance routine at upcoming foundation presidents’ retirements. aimed at supporting the sustainability strategy, and to give Regrettably, these rules become deeply ingrained in the real preference to those projects with a high likelihood of organization, perennially and diligently (fairly) enforced producing benefits outlasting the grant. by erstwhile program staff long after the reasons for their In the midst of starting a new foundation, giving some time existence have been lost to time. As foundations become to fundamental philanthropic culture is important. Early more strategic, these rules frequently become barriers to attention to key elements: accomplishment of stated aims. For example, we did not • independent, nonconflicted decisionmaking; fund scholarships—primarily because another Kansas health • strong external input and a learning attitude; philanthropy had a large scholarship program in place. This historic rule would have precluded our funding of individual • a grant process less rule-bound and more focused on education experiences (okay, scholarships) for lactation securing the best investment opportunities; and consultants needed to advance our breastfeeding work. We • funding leveraged, sustainable projects luckily remembered the “why” and funded that lactation training. is an approach that will bring many rewards for years to come. LEVERAGING—ALWAYS IMPORTANT Instead of rules, it is wise to focus on leveraging and sustainability from the beginning, whether you are of an “over the transom” (all comers), field of interest, or strategic grantmaking mindset. After a few years, most health foundations discover that their millions are not all that much money compared with the problems they are addressing. Hence, impactful organizations often find it necessary to make limited and shorter-term investments (for us, 8–12 years in a field of work) while nevertheless aiming to make significant, long-term changes. If that is the philanthropic dilemma, then leveraging—aggregating sufficient resources to Views from the Field is offered by GIH as a forum move the work to a meaningful level of impact—must be an for health grantmakers to share insights and experiences. If you are inherent feature of philanthropic business. This can take the interested in participating, please contact Osula Rushing at 202.452.8331 or orushing@gih.org.