Cultural Competence in Site Visits and Life

May 2, 2013
guglielmoher

Rudy Guglielmo, Jr., of Youthprise and Lue Her of Otto Bremer Foundation

As part its ongoing Effective Grantmaking Series, MCF hosted Effective, Culturally Competent Site Visits.

Site visits are an excellent opportunity for foundations to connect with potential grantees and get a clearer picture of what applicants do and whom they serve. They are also a way to develop relationships, beyond the typical grantmaker/grantee dynamic.

Lissa Jones, MCF’s director of diversity, equity and inclusion, shared “Three Giant Steps to Cultural Competence.”

  1. Build your own awareness. Bias is often transferred unconsciously, so check in with yourself about your cultural biases. What, for example, did your grandfather say about the value of immigrants?  As we become aware of our biases, we can work to make more culturally-informed grantmaking decisions.
  2. Develop a way of knowing. Go to cultural events, read a community paper, check out opportunities in your neighborhood to learn about other cultures. It’s all around if you look for it!
  3. Practice, practice, practice. Develop relationships, engage in the community and realize this is a lifelong endeavor. You’ll never say, “OK, I’m done. I’ve learned it all, and now I’m culturally competent!”

Panelists for the session were program officers Rudy Guglielmo, Jr., Youthprise, and Lue Her, Otto Bremer Foundation.

youthprise

Youthprise Site Visits: Guglielmo gave examples of how to look at the sector, organizational capacity and program effectiveness with a cultural lens (put yourself in the applicant’s shoes), rather than a traditional foundation lens (develop a rationale for an investment).

A traditional lens values information veracity, research accuracy, alignment of the grantee with foundation guidelines and may involve less transparent decision-making.

A cultural lens puts cultural identity at the center of the conversation and allows for an asset-based approach with an open-ended conversation between foundation and applicant. Use of a cultural lens is not a substitute for due diligence, but it is a way to learn about an applicant in a community context. It can be an effective way to evaluate requests in areas that are traditionally hard to quantify (leadership, community organizing, youth development) and provide an opportunity to establish an ongoing relationship with a potential grantee.

Guglielmo closed with a list of learning strategies: accompany an experienced funder into the field, commit to regular visits to an organization and use the foundation’s capacity to convene and allow for peer learning. The biggest barrier to culturally competent site visits is the need to build relationships.

obf

Otto Bremer Foundation Site Visits: Her says site visits are the backbone of the Otto Bremer Foundation and a principle tenant of its work. Each visit is important in establishing or maintaining a relationship, learning about community and doing due diligence.

On Her’s first site visit with Bremer, he accompanied another program officer to “learn the ropes.” During the visit, proposal-related questions were not asked, instead the conversation focused on what was going on in the community. Trust was established and the relationship grew from there.

Culturally competent site visits are not done in isolation; they are one piece of the puzzle. Before a visit, research is done, conversations held and trust established. You have to make time to build relationships, as there is no crash course in culture.

Her ended by saying the road to cultural competence starts with one relationship, and you’re becoming culturally competent when you don’t have to think about it so much.

- Megan Sullivan, MCF operations and publications coordinator



Charitable Giving Tax Deduction Challenged by Minnesota House

April 30, 2013

capitol1aThe Minnesota House of Representatives adopted a tax bill that replaces the state’s charitable giving income tax deduction with a tax credit. Neither the Governor nor the Senate has embraced this idea in their tax plans, but MCF is working with nonprofit advocates to oppose the House proposal.

Deduction vs. Credit

Currently, Minnesota taxpayers can reduce their taxable income by deducting charitable contributions. Those who itemize on their federal taxes can deduct all of their contributions, while non-itemizers can deduct 50%.

The House plan replaces the deduction with a credit. Rather than reducing taxable income, the credit would be subtracted from the tax bill after it is calculated. Under the House proposal, taxpayers who contribute $400 or more or who give 2% of their adjusted gross income could claim the credit. The proposed changes are in Article 6 of HF677. *

Advocates for the House plan suggest the bill is a win-win: The credit would create more resources for nonprofits, while also adding $40 million in revenue to the state through tax expenditure savings.

Their theory is that tax expenditures should be used to incentivize new investment, and not to reward people for what they might do anyway, without beneficial tax treatment. It assumes that — because donors donate a similar amount to the same beneficiaries each year — the credit would encourage them to increase their giving.

Unfortunately, the House plan is not supported by any projections that giving would, indeed, increase.

Investment in Civil Society

Supporters of the House plan fail to recognize that some tax deductions exist as an expression of public values, while others are designed to promote economic activity. Alexander Reid, former counsel for the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, suggests the charitable giving tax deduction serves to acknowledge that investment in civil society is an essential, core value in democratic society. Therefore, the economic test for the charitable giving tax expenditure’s worth may simply not apply.

MCF and our nonprofit allies oppose the proposed shift from a deduction to a credit because it raises fundamental and substantial policy questions about what makes democratic society work and whether charitable giving should be taxed.

More Conversation Needed

While first floated as an idea in 2009, the House proposal to change charitable giving pretty much came from out of the blue (many think it got added to the tax bill simply to help meet revenue projections). This change affects the revenue stream of nonprofits, which make up 10% of the state’s economy and are essential to creating vital, livable communities. It merits much more deliberative analysis and conversation.

It appears Senate leaders and the Dayton administration do not have much of a political appetite to enact the House charitable giving reforms this year. But the House action clearly points to a need for partners in the state’s independent sector to lead communities in conversations about the role and future of charitable giving in Minnesota.

- Bob Tracy, MCF director of government relations and public policy

* The language in HF677 states that contributions through trusts and estates would not be eligible for the credit. MCF brought this to the bill author’s attention, and she stated this was not her intent. Should the House’s reform advance, the author intends to make contributions through trusts and estates eligible for the credit in conference committee.

This post has been updated to reflect the current location of the repeal of the charitable deduction and establishment of a tax credit in HF677.


Good Data = Better Arts Organizations

April 29, 2013

cdp1The Cultural Data Project (CDP) — now in use by 7 Minnesota-based funders and 200 Minnesota arts and culture organizations — can lead to better arts organizations. In addition, use of the CDP can help foundations and corporate giving programs streamline their grantmaking and help nonprofits better understand their programmatic and financial health.

When the CDP launched in Minnesota on June 1, 2012, MCF members The McKnight Foundation and Target were the first two Minnesota-based funders to require that grantees enter data in the CDP.

Their early and enthusiastic support has resulted in data collection from several hundred arts organizations in less than a year. And, naturally the more funders that require grantseekers to use CDP, the richer the database and its usefulness for grantmakers, grantseekers and arts advocates.

While writing an article for the spring issue of Giving Forum, online now and in your mailbox soon, I was surprised by one example of CDP data use from Michigan.

In 2012, ArtServe Michigan, Michigan’s statewide arts organization, used CDP and other data to demonstrate that for every $1 invested by the state, the arts sector contributed $51 to the state’s economy. That informed efforts to increase arts funding and led to the tripling of the budget appropriation for Michigan’s arts board.

Wow! Think what that might mean for Minnesota in a few short years.

To learn more, don’t miss “Good Data Can Create Better Arts Organizations” in the spring issue of Giving Forum.

- Susan Stehling, MCF communications associate


Employee Volunteers — Using Brains and Brawn

April 26, 2013

brainsThis week is National Volunteer Week, something many of you are already aware of. If you read my colleague’s post yesterday, you know Minnesota ranks #4 among the 50 states for volunteerism and the Twin Cities ranks #1 among the 51 largest metropolitan areas in the country.

As a past coordinator of large special events, I tend to think of volunteering in terms of brawn.

But during the last year, I’ve learned more about skills-based or pro-bono volunteering, which is primarily about brain. I’ve heard about some interesting ways that companies are encouraging their employees to share their time and their talents with nonprofits in the communities where they work. Here are just a few:

  • Employees from General Mills, Cargill and Supervalu packaged and distributed 600,000 lbs. of sweet corn to food shelves in 2012. This is produce that otherwise would’ve rotted in farm fields.
  • General Mills employees share expertise and technology with African farmers and food producers. Projects in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia link employees from research and development, nutrition, engineering, marketing, finance and beyond.
  • United Health Group uses online micro-volunteering to enable employees (22% of whom are telecommuters) to complete short volunteer assignments without leaving home. Nonprofits have entered 500 projects in an online database which employees can peruse and commit to completing. For example, an employee might offer to set up a spreadsheet or proof a brochure.
  • Employees at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota created a garden (PDF) where they grew and donated 1,350 lbs. of produce in 2012.
  • Xcel Energy’s employees provide energy-saving audits and programs for nonprofits, helping organizations stretch their budgets and be good stewards of resources.
  • U.S. Bank donated the time of one of its iPhone app designers to create an app for The Salvation Army to recruit bell ringers for one-hour slots at 400 kettles across the Twin Cities.

I know this is a short list of large companies located in the Twin Cities. I’d love to hear more about unique things your company — small or large, urban or rural — is doing to encourage employees to better the communities where we live and work.

The summer issue of Giving Forum will focus on corporate philanthropy, so please send story ideas and pictures!

Thanks! I look forward to hearing from many you!

- Susan Stehling, MCF communications associate

Image cc Hey Paul Studios



Moving Beyond Racial Equity Programs

April 24, 2013
Julie Nelson of the Seattle Office for Civil Rightsd

Julie Nelson of the Seattle Office for Civil Rightsd

In Minnesota we talk a lot (a lot!) about the racial equity gaps in education, the workforce, health and other measures of well-being. But talking is not enough. When will we take intentional, strategic actions to address the institutional and structural racism at the root of these problems?

At a convening last week entitled “Cross-Sector Learning on Racial Equity,” Julie Nelson, director of the Seattle Office for Civil Rights, and Glenn Harris, manager of the City of Seattle Race and Social Justice Initiative, offered a well-defined path to action.

Speaking to representatives of philanthropy, the nonprofit sector and local government, they challenged Minnesotans to move beyond simply designing and funding programs. Instead, they advocated shifting focus from program development to changing policies and creating productive partnerships.

For example, to solve the day care crisis, a city can create a program of childcare vouchers, but there will never be enough money for enough vouchers. Instead, a universal child care policy can be created that relies on a partnership between government, businesses, child care providers, parents and other community members committed to quality care.

Systematic and Systemic Institutional Change
Fundamental to policy change is systems change.  Maintaining current institutional cultures and practices will lead to the same outcomes, said Harris and Nelson. To “interrupt the process that generates the same thinking over and over again,” they introduced Seattle’s Racial Equity Toolkit.

Use of the toolkit begins with a six-step analysis:

  • Set outcomes
  • Involve stakeholders (be inclusive!) and analyze data
  • Determine benefit and/or burden
  • Advance opportunity or minimize harm
  • Evaluate, raise racial awareness, and be accountable
  • Report back (the work is iterative!)

Nelson and Harris reported that the toolkit process is used in the development and implementation of every city policy, program and budget in Seattle. They cited concrete examples of resulting equity improvements. And they reported that by using a “big squeeze” strategy – top officials pushing for change from above and community members pushing up from the grassroots – they’ve achieved record levels of city government employee engagement.

Bringing All Parties to the Table
Harris and Nelson also emphasized that achieving organizational and community equity requires “a multi-layered collaborative approach for a collective impact.” To change the conversation and achieve progress, efforts to build racial equity into city policies and initiatives must be married with partnerships with other institutions and the community.

In forming these partnerships, it’s essential to create space for productive conversations about race. This includes, said Nelson, “working with white people to understand white privilege and increase understanding of racism’s impact on all of us.”

Is this possible in the Twin Cities? The visitors from Seattle expressed their confidence that Minneapolis and St. Paul are poised for a breakthrough. They encouraged philanthropists to serve as conveners and to not be discouraged if some people initially walk away. By being intentional and strategic, the core group can attract more than enough people to fill those empty seats, creating momentum and progress that cannot be turned back.

The Minnesota attendees relished the encouragement for action. They recognized the need for rigorously applying a racial equity lens to every aspect of their work. Representatives of Greater Twin Cities United Way and MCF, the convening’s hosts, pledged to continue the conversation. We’ll report back on the outcomes.

- Wendy Wehr, MCF vice president of communications and information services


Are Grantmakers Supporting Nonprofit Evaluation?

April 23, 2013

Don’t miss MCF’s spring issue of Giving Forum, online now and in your mailbox soon, for answers from MCF’s research manager in the “Giving Trends” article.

giving_trends_figurea

Funders can build nonprofit capacity for evaluation — and other types of operating activities — by providing general support. However, Minnesota grantmakers continue to provide most dollars in the form of program support. 

Minnesota grantmakers allocated grant dollars like this in 2010:

  • 62%: program support
  • 20%: general support
  • 9%:   capital support

While U.S. averages looked like this:

  • 53%: program support
  • 22%: general support
  • 14%: capital support

With general support, grantmakers help nonprofits develop evaluation capacities and thereby support stronger outcomes for Minnesota communities.

For much more on the topic, please read “Giving Trends” in the current issue of Giving Forum.

- Susan Stehling, MCF communications associate


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,445 other followers