Private Foundation

GUEST POST - A Snapshot from Foundations on the Hill

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 by Mike Howland

We've all just returned from Foundations on the Hill, and today I offer my blog space to Helen Ishii, our director of member and government affairs, who led SECF's charge of 50 people up the steps of Capitol Hill and lived to tell about it. The results were the best we've seen from any Foundations on the Hill event to date. My hat's off to Helen for pulling us all together. Here's her reflection from the experience:

I'm sitting across from a couple of very bright Congressional staffers, making idle chit chat and finding connections with less than six degrees of separation, as we await Rep. Boozman (D-AR-3rd) to return from a vote to meet with us. I appreciate that the Congressman finds our visit important enough to return to the office, especially as it's now 5:00 p.m. I also appreciate that in every office we've visited today, someone in our group has found a personal connection to at least one staffer and also often to the Member of Congress. These personal connections have proven important over the years as they are often what makes a staffer or Member comfortable calling on us as a resource.

This is my 6th trek to DC for Foundations on the Hill. This physically exhausting trip has become a valued annual event for our members, 50 of whom made it this year. These hearty souls put many miles on their soles as they walk and walk and walk the halls on the Hill. This year they have visited 94 Members of Congress from the 11 states in the Southeastern Council of Foundations' (SECF) region. Every year we return to educate the ever revolving supply of extremely young, extremely bright and extremely inexperienced staffers about the work of foundations, as well as to inform Members of Congress on the issues impacting our sector.

This year I joined our teams from Arkansas and South Carolina as they made their visits. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) immediately "got" the importance of basing the TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) funding formula upon need and the benefit that would accrue to all Southern states. She also remarked about how helpful it was to have the same message delivered to her Southern colleagues by other SECF members.

Everyone saw how a cap on charitable deductions could be harmful to the sector. As to be expected, the chair of the House Budget Committee, Rep. John Spratt (D-SC-5th) asked about the "scoring" of H.R. 4090, which will simplify the private foundation excise tax to a flat rate. We were able to answer his question, thanks to the briefings we'd received from COF the day before. Soon, blessedly soon, I'll be walking to the METRO to catch a flight home, where I'll finally be able to soak my aching feet and begin my thank you notes to continue the relationships begun today.

- Helen Ishii, SECF Director of Member and Government Relations

The Philanthropy Witch Hunt Grows

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 by Betsey Russell

I had to read this article in the Palm Beach Post more than once to believe it was true: "Give us bigger slice, local leaders urge MacArthur charity." It seems the commissioners in Palm Beach County, Florida don't like the way the Chicago-based MacArthur Foundation's board is distributing its grants. It's founder, John D. MacArthur, who died in 1978, spent a great deal of time in his well-loved Palm Beach, and local politicians say that his foundation's giving should match that legacy.

The fact that a community is disgruntled about how or what a foundation funds is nothing new — but the fact that local political leaders are challenging that foundation in the press is indicative of a new era. What used to be quiet, private criticisms are now publicly splashed across news media. We all realize by now that society by and large does not realize what foundations do and how they add value, but now the issue has become critical as policy makers, from Congress to local county commissions, are questioning foundation practices and looking at foundation regulations - and assets - with a new eye.

The Philanthropy Awareness Initiative (PAI) will soon release a report that will show just how much (or how little) local policymakers know about foundations, and PAI's leader, Mark Sedway, will share findings and discuss the implications at the SECF 2010 Annual Meeting in Mobile, AL this November. I'm not optimistic about the results of that report, but I am eager to hear Mark's take on it all.

Maybe it is just a "witch hunt" in a time of economic strife, but those of us in the foundation world have no one to blame but ourselves. Philanthropy information has been notably absent in conversations about public policy for decades. We should have been sharing our stories long, long ago.

The Challenge Grant as Foundation Marketing Tool

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 by Betsey Russell

Today I read an article about the importance of challenge grants by Michael Kaiser, CEO of The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Huffington Post. He writes specifically about the arts and arts grantmaking, but his points are well taken - particularly this one:

"Too many organizations that receive this first big grant build the infrastructure to support their new, increased programming without thinking about the day the grant period ends."

Amen, brother. And this goes for foundations as well. Sure, there's the regular work of administering a multi-year grant and the occasional story about it in the annual report or newsletter, but foundations usually miss the boat when it comes to really tapping into their ability to share their messages and mission in a truly meaningful way with others in their community.

Kaiser says,

"I have long lobbied foundations to make their grants to smaller organizations in the form of challenge grants. A challenge grant must be matched by other contributions, often by new gifts or increased gifts from existing donors. By forcing the organization to build a new, larger donor base during the grant period, the transition when the grant is over is eased. The foundation's money might be gone but the new donors attracted by the match help fill the void.

But many foundations simply do not want to do the oversight work required of administering a challenge grant. And if the foundation is not far-sighted enough to give a matching grant, the organization must be disciplined and smart enough to create its own challenge grant. The senior staff and board must use the grant period to build its donor base. A serious, concerted effort to attract new donors must be pursued."

Obviously, a challenge grant creates a solid marketing opportunity for any nonprofit, but think of what if can also do for the foundation. A community foundation, for instance, could offer its own donor advisors the opportunity to contribute to the challenge and subsequently mobilize a corps of brand ambassadors. A private or family foundation could convene community discussions about the arts (or homelessness, or whatever the issue) during the challenge grant period to stimulate more engagement and elevate its reputation as a servant leadership organization. Corporate grantmakers could couple the challenge grant with a cause marketing opportunity, engaging customers with the nonprofit in question while promoting their own corporate social responsibility. Foundation executives of all stripes could serve on discussion panels, provide newspaper editorials, or even serve as a media resource for the issue addressed by the challenge grant.

None of these are "one-off" opportunities. They can continue throughout the life of a challenge grant.

In engaging in marketing activities of this type, the foundation wins by elevating its profile as an engaged, caring member (even leader) of the community. The nonprofit wins through increased opportunities to cultivate more donors (which is also a win for the foundation). And the community wins through greater understanding of the issues it faces and the people and organizations that are tackling those issues.

We Exist, Therefore . . .

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 by Suzanna Stribling

Like my earlier post about the death of conferences, many have predicted the decline of associations in light of the many online, tailored connections that professionals now enjoy. For those of us working in philanthropy, where it seems a new association or “affinity group” pops up every day, this is news indeed.

So I ask myself, why do associations exist? Why does SECF exist? (Full disclosure: I’ve just sat for the Certified Association Executive exam so I've been thinking a lot about this...

Kevin Holland, on his blog Associations Inc., says: “Associations do not exist to "associate." They exist to promote the interests of the constituencies they represent.” He calls associations to task for merely duplicating “best practices” across various types of associations – meetings, newsletters, blogs, etc. – without really learning about the unique needs of their respective members and finding the point of collective leverage for them.

This year, SECF has spent a lot of time crafting a new strategic plan to better serve the private foundations, family foundations, community foundations and corporate grantmakers who gather under the SECF umbrella to promote their common interests. One of its elements is about just that – promoting the interests of philanthropy in the southeast by supporting the development of state-based grantmaker associations.

Why? Because if philanthropy is going to have a strong voice, it must mirror the political structure we live in – the federal, state, local model. Grantmakers must come together along geographic lines, not because they don’t also need to work globally, but because that’s where the point of leverage is. Associations work along a continuum, from technical assistance to one member to policy action on behalf of the whole. All the elements of association work are helpful to a field but it’s that work to congeal the collective voice that is most challenging and holds the most rewards.

We are your association. You pay your dues every year. Why do you think it’s important for us to exist?

Effective Philanthropy Takes Time

Monday, November 23, 2009 by Byron Harrell, Sc.D.

Dr. Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University won the 2009 Nobel Prize in economics for her research into the role of voluntary associations in solving a wide range of public challenges. Typically, society manages its “public assets” (i.e. fish in the ocean, lumber in public forests, etc.) in one of two ways in order to avoid uncontrolled consumption. First, society treats the public asset like a private asset and submits its consumption to market forces. A good example is offshore oil leases in which potential users competitively bid to lease the “land” and extract oil. Second, society can manage public assets through regulation. An example of regulation is the issuance of fishing licenses that limit the species and number of fish that can be pulled from public waters. In theory, the public’s interests are protected through these two approaches.

Dr. Ostrom won the Nobel Prize for her work exploring a third way to govern the use of public assets known as “voluntary agreement”. Over many years, she documented dozens of examples in many countries where consumers of public assets voluntarily reached agreement to limit and control consumption and users were often more satisfied with the results than under marketplace or regulatory schemes. Voluntary agreement is based on the principle of “reciprocity”- -the belief that the beneficial acts of one party obligates others to reciprocate with equally beneficial acts. Reciprocity also develops trust and improves cooperation.

Deeply imbedded in the concept of voluntary agreement is evidence that it works best from the bottom up. Grassroots groups and users of assets who are closest to the scene reach more effective and durable rules than top-down efforts. Apparently, empowering the people who have the most at stake to regulate the use of a public asset is the key ingredient. How these rights are defined through “rules of the road” such as policies, practices, court decisions, and other official acts seems to be a big help in governing these scarce public resources. Dr. Ostrom has provided us with an empirically rigorous demonstration of these propositions around the world.

This is where foundations should pay close attention to advocacy that starts with grassroots support. The formula that has worked for years in philanthropy is a three-pronged approach to (1) build a large group of local supporters in favor of an effective social intervention (such as a nurse-family partnership based on a well-researched model), (2) independently evaluate a demonstration project to show that it works, and (3) advocate for the elimination of public policies that resist wide-scale adoption and expand public policies that support adoption. All too often, foundations take a “build-it-and-they-will-come” approach before considering best-practices, evaluation, or advocacy. This is known as the “Lone-Ranger” approach which most often leaves them mired in perpetually funding programs that rightfully should qualify for public financial support.

Admittedly, it will take a long time to build grassroots coalitions of the right people, start community interventions that use best practices, and develop advocacy maps so that grantmakers know in advance the public policies they want to change. However, the Lone-Ranger alternative rarely succeeds.

Philanthropy by Popular Vote?

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 by Betsey Russell

As a communications professional, I was in awe of Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency. He reached through the Internet and tapped the passion of thousands of people who had felt disenfranchised by the political system. He mobilized them and created a dramatic shift in the way politicians now view the public.

To my way of thinking, that was a resurgence of true democracy: one person, one vote, re-engaged via social media. Not everyone liked it, of course, because it did tip the balance of power and shake up the status quo.

That said, it calls into question the value of evaluating and mobilizing popular will versus taking a more studied and strategic approach to creating change.

Now, I see this same question coming from inside the philanthropic sector. It started with Facebook's "causes" pages and other social media outlets, where like-minded individuals could rally around shared concerns, pool donations, get engaged as volunteers. But earlier this week, FastCompany posted an article about the new Chase Community Giving Program, a collaboration between Chase and Facebook that will allow users to vote on how Chase will spend $4 million from its corporate philanthropy fund. There are 500,000 charities in the running.

According to the article, "The charity receiving the most votes will receive $1 million, the top 5 runners up will get $100,000 each, and 100 finalists will get $25,000 each. It's all money that Chase would give to charities anyway, but this is the first time that the bank is crowdsourcing its decisions."

"Crowdsourcing," or abdicating?

To say I have mixed feelings about this is an understatement.

On one hand, I'm excited that hundreds of thousands of Facebook users might engage in thoughts of philanthropy, learn about what different nonprofits are doing, and hopefully ignite a personal spark of giving and engagement that will pervade their behavior going forward and result in an even more generous society going forward. I recently heard Aaron Dorfman of the National Center for Responsive Philanthropy cite studies showing that the wisdom of a semi-educated crowd often resulted in better decisions than a homogeneous panel of "experts." That could be true, depending on your definition of "better decisions."

On the other hand, there's the danger that the "winners" in this type of contest are the nonprofits with the best social media engines, not the best or most effective programs. As nonprofits and foundations increasingly come under attack for not doing enough, popular support could be a tempting way to fend off proposed charity or foundation legislation or negative press. I worry that strategic philanthropy could go the way of politics — where popular support at all costs becomes the prize, rather than actually creating a positive impact. Support will come at the expense of doing the more difficult work of demonstrating true effectiveness.

That leads to a point about corporate social responsibility. Are the leaders of Chase's corporate giving just going to become keyboard jockeys? Have they all been laid off? Is crowdsourcing Chase's new attempt at free outsourcing? Or is it just a way to avoid making some tough decisions?

The blog Modern Giving examined a few of the pros and cons of crowd sourcing in July, including a description of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation's Knight News Challenge as an example. (To me, the News Challenge was a great example of crowdsourcing ideas in a more defined and effective way.)

Don't get me wrong: I believe that crowdsourcing is here to stay. I also believe that it may prove to be an effective tool for raising awareness and potentially creating positive change.

But I also think it won't make the difficult task of explaining the work and the value of private foundations, family foundations, community foundations or corporate philanthropy any easier.

What to YOU think?

Let the Philanthro-Networking Begin!

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 by Betsey Russell

There are already many people arriving in Memphis for the Southeastern Council of Foundations Annual Meeting, and watching people greet their colleagues is truly uplifting.

Foundation executives, trustees, and staff of all stripes are converging here in the Peabody for three days of intense discussion about grantmaking resources, philanthropy policy, foundation legislation, and success stories and best practices from around the region. The content of this meeting will no doubt be phenomenal, but there's another lesson that's quickly learned by watching this group gather: Philanthropy is, and always will be, best facilitated through human interaction.

The family foundations, corporate grantmakers, community foundations and private foundations gathered here all share a common passion to serve their fellow man. We will talk in depth about strategy and practice, internal concerns and external perspectives. We will engage in discussions about education, health, art, community development, economics, leadership, communications, governance, the environment, effectiveness, partnership, advocacy and stewardship. But we will also share the joy that the work of philanthropy brings, and relish the face-to-face dialogs that are harder and harder to come by.

Relationships that are born and/or sustained throughout the year via technology will become stronger with a handshake or a hug. New ideas will be generated. Meaning and feeling and passion for those ideas will be communicated with facial expressions and tone of voice.

In other words, we're all here together to truly appreciate one another and strengthen the work we do.

It doesn't get much better than this.

Are "social investors" the only true philanthopists?

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 by Betsey Russell

I saw a post this morning from the Faith Based Philanthropy blog of Paul T. Penley, senior research analysts at the philanthropic advisory firm Excellence in Giving. In his post, Penley essentially says that if donors give just to prove themselves generous or selfless, then their philanthropy (love of human kind) becomes philegy (love of self).

(My first reaction was: "Okay. I can see that. But in this economy, as nonprofits are struggling to deliver vital services, who really cares what a donor's motivation is? Let's take what we can get.")

Continuing his train of thought, Penley says that,

"In true philanthropy we are not satisfied with good intentions or generous amounts. Rather the measure of our generosity has become meaningful and lasting impact. Our hearts yearn to change the lived experience of people in need, and nothing less will do. We educate ourselves, seek advice, analyze past giving, and strategize for the next move to ensure that our hearts’ desire to transform lives is realized."

Am I reading this wrong, or does it sound like "social investors" are now the only true philanthropists?

Sorry, I don't buy it. You can be extremely strategic and still be self-serving. And you can be completely selfless and anonymous and create great change in one human's life without making even the slightest dent in the trials of man writ large.

I don't think faith and selflessness are determined by wisdom or sophistication in giving. And I believe it takes all manner of givers, motivations, strategies and styles of giving to make the fabric of philanthropy.

I'd also love to hear someone other that the cadre of "philanthropic advisors" weigh in on this debate.

Foundation folk? Private philanthropists? What's your take?

Where is the diversified portfolio?

Sunday, November 1, 2009 by Betsey Russell

There's been a lot of online chatter lately about the importance of "social investing" and calls for philanthropists to concentrate more fully on the nonprofits that are proven to be effective.

The conversation starter (at least this time around) was a post by David Hunter, a well-known consultant and author, entitled, "The End of Charity: How to Fix the Nonprofit Sector Through Effective Social Investing." In his well-thought-out post, Hunter acknowledges that his will be an unpopular view as he explains that

"it will have to be the nonprofit sectors’ funders (government, foundations, donors) who take the lead in building a strong, effective and efficient nonprofit sector — a sector that delivers what it promises, to those who need it most in order to have a decent shot at a productive, healthy, satisfying life. This will be the end of charity — and the flourishing of effective social investing."

Hunter goes on to list high-profile examples of nonprofit programs that have failed, and provides a general framework for social investing in terms of portfolio.

"...Social investing isn’t monolithic. There is a continuum along which one can sort out various social investment approaches. So, for example, high-risk social investing involves channeling resources toward nonprofits that show evidence that they are on the road toward being able to create such value for their intended beneficiaries reliably and sustainably, but need additional time and resources to build the capacities to do so. At the other end of the continuum, low-risk social investing means channeling resources exclusively to those nonprofits that already have a sustained track record of producing documented impacts. Clearly most social investors will operate somewhere in between."

Hunter is right - there should be a continuum, and it should include approaches that focus on documented evidence of effectiveness. But I would argue that it should be broader than just social investing, just like a well-allocated investment portfolio should always include a mix of cash, stocks, bonds, real estate, etc., dictated by the goals of the investor.

I also disagree with Hunter on one specific point. "Charity" will never end. Ever.

People give and invest charitable dollars for different reasons. Not everyone is motivated by longitudinal studies. And I for one think that's a good thing.

If we all become social investors and shun charity, we're in deep trouble as a caring society. Human needs and human societies are just downright inefficient.

Yes, we should continue to strive to teach men to fish — but at the same time, we can't let them starve by withholding fish while they're learning to angle.

I can think of several community foundations, private foundations and corporate grantmakers in our region who have, in the light of the current economy, redoubled their efforts to simply help "supply fish." They've not abandoned the desire to invest philanthropic dollars more effectively, or to push for more evidence of effectiveness. But they've also not abandoned the portion of their investment portfolio (so to speak) that focuses on immediate need. They will continue to rebalance their philanthropic investment portfolio to include short and long-term goals as the reality of life in their community continues to flow and change.

Just like in the financial markets, there is no universal "best" way to achieve returns across the spectrum of human needs. We need all approaches, tailored to our goals and perceptions of what accomplishes them. And all should be a part of the full spectrum of philanthropy policy and practices.

Do you agree? Where are you putting your money?

Rural Policy, Philanthropy Must Go Hand-In-Hand

Monday, October 26, 2009 by Betsey Russell

In an article last week in the online rural newspaper, The Daily Yonder, Karl Stauber, president of the Danville Regional Foundation, writes an open letter to President Obama, calling on him not to leave rural communities out of the mix as he looks for ways to provide new hope and a future for America.

A former USDA under-secretary, Stauber suggests five ways in which rural communities should be part of the policy mix, including a call for the creation of a Rural Civil Rights Act. He writes:

"People living in rural communities and regions should not be denied opportunities because of their location status. There about 50 million people living in rural America. If rural were a catgory like "race or ethnicity,” it would include more people than "Hispanic" or "African-American." Separate and un-equal should not be tolerated for any group. Access to opportunity should be a right, not an accident of locale. "

In this case, the "separate and un-equal" comes from blanket federal policies that are designed more for urban areas with the occasional rural afterthought. What Stauber calls for is a federal policy that allows rural areas to use federal investments in ways that are more suited to their unique environments and situations. That makes sense to me. I can't imagine that a policy that creates jobs and opportunity in Atlanta would derive the same benefit in Pineola, NC — or that what works in a southeastern mountain community would also work as well in the southwestern desert. The cultures, traditions, challenges and resources make for different worlds.

Stauber is writing specifically about federal government policy, but we all know that philanthropy has a huge role to play as well. I would suggest that philanthropic resources are the most important assets to engage in rural communities. There's no better vehicle for taking some risks, asking some difficult questions, and spurring community engagement. Just imagine what might happen if there were a community foundation or a private foundation serving even half of our country's rural communities. These foundation's wouldn't need to be housed in a rural area, but just have a foundation trustee or two who could interpret the needs and impact of grantmaking on the rural area and the urban centers it feeds.

True, foundations can't do it all or do it alone — and although there have been many laudable efforts to increase philanthropy in rural areas over the past two decades, we've still got a long way to go. But let's not throw in the towel. Even though their economies are shrinking, rural areas still have a role to play in our overall economy and the well being of our country — especially here in the South.

Is Advocacy Funding Finally Hitting the Mainstream?

Thursday, October 15, 2009 by Betsey Russell

Advocacy funding has long been a taboo subject for many foundations. It's not that they're not interested, per se, but that the rules about how foundations can and can't fund advocacy have been somewhat complex. Maybe it's a real fear of overstepping the line, maybe just an unwillingness to wrestle through the process - at any rate, advocacy funding hasn't been common.

Don't get me wrong: there are some great examples of foundations that DO engage in advocacy funding, like Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina, Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, Healthcare Georgia Foundation and others. But it's not a pervasive practice in the field.

However, there are some indications of late that the tide may be turning. The IRS recently sent a private letter ruling to the Alliance for Justice that says community foundations can now fund advocacy under the same rules that private foundations follow. Perhaps this is the beginning of a new era of advocacy funding. Community foundations are typically more willing and able to break into the forefront when it comes to engaging in "messy" community issues like advocacy. Perhaps they'll now be able to take the lead in working together with private foundations and other funders and nonprofits to advocate about community issues.

A second indication that the seas may be changing is a new report from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Whether you love 'em or hate 'em, NCRP does a great deal to push for shifts in foundation behavior. The newest report from NCRP's "Grantmaking for Community Impact" project examines the relative benefit derived from investments in 15 local advocacy organizations in Minnesota.

According to NCRP, " For every dollar invested in their advocacy and organizing work ($16.5 million total), the groups garnered $138 in benefits for Minnesota communities."

The aggregate total monetary benefit, according to NCRP, was more than $2.28 billion.

Is that argument alone enough to encourage more funders into the realm of advocacy? Not by itself. Many funders will choose - and rightly so - to focus their work in the microcosms of local communities and build change from the grassroots up. But perhaps more will also feel at home addressing social problems at the macro level of state and federal public policy.

Is the tide beginning to turn? Or is it just me? What has YOUR experience been with advocacy? What do you think may be different in the future?

So Much to Talk About

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 by Betsey Russell

With as fast as the world of philanthropy is changing, it's sometimes hard to keep up. Private foundation legislation about payouts morphs into new rules for community foundations about funding advocacy groups. Corporate philanthropy's impact on brands runs together in my head with arguments about perpetuity and why people set up a foundation in the first place.

For years, the Southeastern Council of Foundations has been a haven for all manner of philanthropic conversations to take place, and now, I'm proud to see this organization taking the conversation one step farther. In this new blog, you'll find posts about a variety of topics from a number of authors about foundation rules, philanthropic policy, key issues for foundation trustees, worthy stories of grantmaking from around the region, news, useful ideas, and more.

But this blog is only a means to get the conversation started, so read often, share your thoughts frequently, and help us all raise the voice and vision of philanthropy further into our collective consciousness.

There's so much to talk about!

Who Defines How Foundations Should Change?

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 by Mike Howland

There's no shortage of opinion these days about what foundations should do differently to support nonprofits, which groups they should be funding, and how much they ought to pay out in grants. The commentary ranges from deeply insightful and soul-searching to borderline ludicrous.

This is not an environment that grantmakers have seen before. And while the chorus of columnists and policy wonks is full of suggestions (and in some cases, threats), the reality is that foundation trustees of private foundations, independent foundations, community foundation and corporate philanthropy have to make their own decisions about how to adapt to, and continue to add value in, a changed world.

It's not an "ain't nobody's business if I do," situation. Rather we should acknowledge that philanthropy is - and always has been - a personal thing.

I understand this completely, because the Southeastern Council of Foundations, as an association, has had to do the same thing. We recently launched our new strategic plan, and it paints a very new picture of our organization. Our strategic planning committee had to grapple with some tough issues about our relevancy to members and the value we provided. With their guidance, we came out of that discussion on the right path.

Just like our foundation members, we know we can't continue "business as usual," so we've made some changes. We've become more focused on building leadership in the sector, allowing our members to customize their relationship with us and with one another to a more detailed degree. We're also working strategically with other grantmaker organizations as partners.

Simply put, we're giving our members more ways to connect and more to connect to as they make very personal decisions about their grantmaking and their futures.

Luckily for us, the personal and professional relationships that members gain through SECF have retained - and even increased - their value during tough times. Connections, communications and camaraderie are valuable tools when one is struggling with touch choices. SECF is honored to provide those tools.

So, to all of you in the foundation community, I say: Only you can make the decisions about your foundation's operations and future. Don't let anyone tell you any differently. But don't make those decisions in a vacuum. Let your colleagues and friends at SECF know what we can do to help.

And on the same note, I know that growth and change are never really "complete," so I invite you all to take a look at our strategic plan and let us know what you think.

Michael R. Howland, CAE
President and CEO
Southeastern Council of Foundations