190 24 26018 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/82ac901876ef5ab7e8cabd397a4763aa.pdf 97de2d411e6b91828f1507ee21813c4c PDF Text Text CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Date: February 13, 2009 Memo to: Melonie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board of Trustees From: Phil Peters, Chair, CMF Audit Committee, and Dave L indberg, Vice President Finance & Administration RE: CMF 2009-10 Budget Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. RESOLVED that the CMF Board of Trustees accept the 2009-10 CMF Core Services and Endowment Funds Budgets as recommended by the CMF Audit & Executive Committees. Background On February 9, 2009, both the Audit Committee and Executive Committee had m eetings and approved the enclosed budget. As noted in the Minutes of the Executive Committee, both Committees also approved the following Core Member Services Surplus Sharing Plan on a trial basis for 2009-10, in light of the wage freeze that management proposed. RESOLVED that the CMF Board of Trustees approve a one year operating surplus sharing system for 2009-10 in which all CMF staff working at least 16 hours a week, except for those staff dedicated 100% to special projects, are eligible to share equally in up to $10,000 of any Core Member Services surplus. In conducting the annual review of the CMF personnel policies, management reports that there are no changes proposed that have a financial impact on the 2009-10 budget. Health insurance premiums have increased 13% effective January 1, 2009. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Budget Memo.doc �CMF Core Member Services Revenue Note 1: Membership Investment Based on payments received through 12-31-08 it appears membership will total $994,000 for 2008-09, which is the fifth year of the current dues structure. Based on the investment market results we have estimated members' assets to decrease by 25% from the 12-31-07 level, which would drop many members into a lower dues category, potentially reducing revenue by $ 120,000. As part ofthe renewal process we will ask members to remain at their 2008-09 dues level if possible and have estimated this would result in an additional $21,000, primarily from the larger members. Revenue is budgeted to change due to the following items: ($120,000) Decrease in members' asset levels Members remain at 2008-09 level even those 21,000 whose assets result in lower dues category Net new members 0 @ $each 0 Total $99,000 The Membership Committee has been reactivated to help staff with efforts to retain members as well as look at possible new member classifications. Note 2: Additional Member Contributions The bulk of this category includes the $150,000 contribution from Kellogg. 2009-10 is the final year of the current five-year $150,000/yr grant commitment from Kellogg. Several years ago we had success requesting additional funds with the membership renewal request to cover specific items such as technology equipment, special publications, etc. , and have budgeted to generate an additional $25,000 for types of items in 2009-10. Note 3: Other Grants In November 2005 CMF received a 3-year $25,000/yr grant from The Skillman Foundation to support the occupancy cost for the Southeast Michigan office, which is located at Skillman. 2008-09 represented the final year of this grant. Skillman has given CMF the verbal approval to occupy the current space for one more year and this commitment should be fonnalized by the end of February. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Budget Memo.doc �Note 4: Conference & Meetings The decrease in revenue and expenses is due primarily to the anticipated reduction in attendees and sponsorship for the November 2009 Annual Conference. The Annual Conference is budgeted to provide $100,000 to support a portion of the staff time to produce this event vs. the $142,000 that was generated from the October 2008 conference. Total staff time for the conference has been estimated at roughly $200,000 and is not currently charged to the conference expense line item. Note 5: Publications Income The 16111 Edition ofthe Michigan Foundation Directory is budgeted to be ready for sale in the summer of2009 listing only those foundations that accept applications vs. all foundations as in prior editions. A print-only version will be produced, dropping the CD for this edition. In addition, we have budgeted to sell for the first time Creating and Managing a Family Foundation and are projecting 130 sales at $75 each. Publication 161n Edition Michigan Foundation Directory Creating & Managing a Family Foundation Mise sales Total Revenue $48,000 10,000 1,000 $59,000 The overall surplus budgeted for the Directory is $37,000, which is produced every two years. Note 6: Investment Earnings Due to the drop in the market value of the Operating Endowment Fund, less income will be available for spending in 2009-10. The remaining interest from the operating funds, which is invested in a money market account, should remain consistent with 2008-09. Expenses Note 7: Wages & Benefits No cost of living adjustment or merit increase has been budgeted for 2009- 10. $37,000 in Core wages has been allocated to potential future special projects. $15,000 in savings has been budgeted for the reductions in hours of the Director of Technology's position. These two items are partially offset by the VP of Corporate Services position which was filled in mid-November 2008. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Budget Memo.doc �Note 8: Equipment & F urniture The reduction is primarily due to the President's car that was purchased in 2008-09. Note 9: Dues & Sponsorships $21 ,000 of this amount represents the dues payment to the Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers. Note 10: Communications/Publications The change from the prior year is due to the following items: Reduction in use of Editorial Consultant Product costs 16tn Edition of Michigan Foundation Directory ($19,000) 21 ,000 While a reduction in the hours of Mike Gallagher, our editorial consu ltant, is being recommended, he will still focus on NewsWire. In addition, there is the potential to involve his services through funding provided by Special Projects. Senior staff will be asked to do more w riting both for the webs ite and CMF publications. Note 11: Professional & Contracted Services The decrease from the prior year is due to the cancellation of the newsclip service since we can now access member news via the internet. Expenses for 2009-1 0 Lobbying/Advocacy - Michigan - Public Affairs Assoc. Legal - Clark Hill Audit Fees Mise Total $18,000 10,000 5,500 500 $34,000 Note 12: Travel By reducing travel to national conferences we have been able to reduce this line item by approximately 40%. There is no reduction in travel within Michigan because it would impact our ability to serve members. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Budget Memo.doc �Endowment Funds Spendable income is budgeted based on a 5% twenty-quarter rolling average spending policy. Because the value of the 4 quarters that were dropped out of the 2009-10 calculation were significantly lower than the four quarters added, spendable income has actual increased for the coming year. The spendable income projected for 2010-11 assumes the market remains flat for 2009. William W. Allen Fund The purpose of this fund is to further the understanding of private philanthropy in federal and state legislative and regulatory matters. The fund was established with contributions from CMF members in honor of William Allen, who was the first CMF Government Relations Committee Chainnan. Spendable Income Spendable Income Spendable Income 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 $8,600 $9,000 $8,500 Budgeted Expenses: 161n Edition of Directories to legislators CMF staff travel including Public Policy Fellow COF Hill visit registrations fees for CMF Members Cost to be passed along to members ZIP to District Matching file Misc. expenses 2,700 $2,000 3,500 900 400 Russell G. Mawby Fund to Improve and Increase Philanthropy The fund was established to honor Dr. Mawby's contributions to Michigan philanthropy. The purpose of this fund is to improve and increase philanthropy by continuing and expanding CMF's efforts to enhance philanthropy and expand charitable resources available in the State ofMichigan. Spendable Income Spendable Income Spendable Income 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 $73,000 $77,000 $73,000 S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Budget Memo.doc �Budgeted Expenses: Dues & Sponsorship: NCFP Online Governor's Service Awards- Mawby Award Video Michigan Women' s Foundation Award Dinner MNA Nonprofit Day W. Michigan Chapter Nat' ] Philanthropy Day MNA Grantmaker/Grantseeker Conference Mise Books & Subscriptions 1611 Edition Directories to Legislators (1 38 @ $85) Professional Mise projects Travel & Training Dinner for Members at Governor's Service Award Event Diversity Training 3,600 2,500 500 1,000 500 500 11,700 11,700 1,000 4,000 Ruth & Russ Mawby Fund for Kids This fund was established in December of 1995, with a $500,000 directed contribution from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, by Ruth and Russ Mawby. The purpose of this fund is to improve and increase philanlhrupy Lhruugh yuulh invulvt:mt:nl in Lht: Slalt: of Michigan. Spendable Income Spendable Income Spendable Income 2008-09 2009-10 2010- 11 $42,000 $44,000 $42,000 Budgeted Expenses: Summer Intern Wages & Benefits Travel & Training Intern & Program Assoc. Summer Youth Conference (Revenue $25,000) YAC Advisor Training Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy meeting 5,500 4,700 41 ,400 500 500 Dorothy A. Johnson Educational Fund The Dorothy A. Jolmson Endowment Fund was established in 1999 to honor the work of our founding President. The purpose of this fund is to support speaker expenses at the Annual Conference and promote the principles and practices of effective grantmaking. Spendable Income Spendable Income Spendable Income 2008-09 2009- 10 2010-11 $49,000 $49,000 $47,000 S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Budget Memo.doc �Budgeted Expenses: I CMF Annual Conference support $49,ooo I Community Foundation Endowment Fund The purpose of this fund is to support CMF's technical assistance to community foundations in M ichigan. Spendable Income Spendable Income Spendable Income 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 $358,000 $375,000 $359,000 There is a separate detailed budget sheet for this Fund. MCFYP Endowment (Michigan Community Foundation Youth Project) This fund was established from the surplus challenge grant dollars that remained at the end of the community foundation youth challenge grants. The purpose of this fund is to support the ongoing technical assistance and training needs of the 86 community foundation Youth Advisory Committees (YACs) in Michigan. Spendable Income Spendable Income Spendable Income 2008-09 2009- 10 2010-11 $57,000 $60,000 $58,000 Budgeted Expenses: Youth Program Associate Telephone & Supplies Technology Travel & Registration Fees MCFYP Committee meetings YAC Adv isor Calls Mise meetings $24,000 1,300 5,000 2,000 2,700 500 300 Margaret Ann (Ranny) Riecker Leadership Fund This fund was established in September 2002 to honor the leadership Ms. Riecker provided in her 26 years as trustee and two terms as Chair of CMF. The purpose of this fund is to support innovative leadership that increases, enhances and improves philanthropy in the state of Michigan - at this time the work of the Public Policy Fellow. Spendable Income Spendable Income 2008-09 2009-10 S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Budget Memo.doc �I Spendable Income 1 2o1o-11 $56,ooo 1 Budgeted Expenses: Public Policy Fellow salary Fellow Telephone $55,000 2,000 Community Foundation Technology Fund In February 2003, the CMF Board of Trustees established this fund from the accumulated interest earnings and repaid loans of the Kellogg Computer Grant. The purpose of this fund is to support the on going technology needs of Michigan community foundations. Spendable Income Spendable Income Spendable Income 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 $24,000 $24,000 $23,000 Budgeted Expenses: FIMS Support- Consultant - Bill Nethercut Mise Technology. $16,000 8,000 William C. Richardson Endowment Fund In October 2005 the CMF Board of Trustees approved the establishment of this endowment fund from a $400,000 designated gift from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation by Dr. Richardson. The purpose of this fund is to support the ongoing involvement in an intern/fellowship role at CMF by students from Michigan colleges or universities who are interested in careers involving the nonprofit sector and public policy. Spendable Income Spendable Income Spendable Income 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 $22,000 $20,000 $18,000 Budgeted Expenses: Public Policy Committee meetings, net of registration fees Public Policy Briefings (net of registration fees) Legal work (L3C) etc. Public Policy Fellow Travel 2,000 2,800 7,000 $15,000 Carl F. Reitz Fund for Investment Education S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Budget Memo.doc �On December 19, 2005, the CMF Executive Committee approved the establishment ofthis fund from a $25,000 gift from the Besser Foundation and a matching $25,000 transfer from CMF's Core Fund balance. The purpose of this fund is to honor Mr. Reitz's long time service to CMF as a trustee and the interest he has in investment education for foundation staff and trustees. Spendable Income Spendable Income Spendable Income 2008-09 2009- 10 2010-11 $2,600 $2,500 $2,200 Budgeted Expenses: I Investment Session at Annual Conference $2,5oo I CMF Core Services Endowment Fund In March 2007, the CMF Board approved the establishment of an endowment fund to support ongoing member services using $600,000 from the surplus dollars that have accumulated over the years. 2008-09 is the first year that income is available for spending. Spendable Income Spendable Income Spendable Income 2008-09 2009-10 2010- 11 $30,000 $27,000 $25,000 S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Budget Memo.doc �Council of Michigan Foundations Core Member Services Budget 2009-10 Budget 2008-09 Revenues Membership Investment Additional Member Contributions Other Grants- Detroit Office Conference & Meetings Publications Other Income Investment Earnings Operating Fds. Investment earnings Endow Fd Total Revenues Program/Admin Expenses Wages & Benefits Occupancy Telephone Equipment Lease & Maintenance Postage Supplies Insurance Equipment & Furniture Depreciation Technology Dues & Sponsorship Books & Subscriptions Communications/Publications Professional Services Travel Training & Seminars Conference & Meetings (Gain)/Loss Sale of Fixed Assets Overhead Allocation to Spec Projects Total Program/Admin Projected 2008-09 $1,006,000 166,000 25,000 598,000 15,000 2,000 108,000 30,000 1,950,000 $ 994,000 167,000 23,000 650,000 18,000 1,000 65,000 30,000 1,948,000 1,014,000 68,000 13,000 3,000 20,000 30,000 6,000 970,000 70,000 13,000 2,500 14,000 22,000 4,000 30,000 987,000 71,000 12,000 2,500 13,000 20,000 4,000 74,000 34,500 5,000 88,000 40,000 63,000 9,000 484,000 67,000 33,000 5,000 66,000 40,000 63,000 9,000 536,000 64,000 32,000 4,000 71,000 34,000 41,000 3,000 360,000 (1 ,500) 1,950,000 (1 ,300) 1,943,200 (1 ,500) 1,717,000 Grants Challenge Grants Mini-Grants Computer Grants Other Grants Total Grants Excess Revenues Over Expenditures Beginning Net Assets CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE Ending Net Assets S:\Finance\Budgets\09-10\Core 09-10 Budget 2009-10 Note Note Note Note Note 1 2 3 4 5 Note 6 Note 6 Note 7 Note 8 Note 9 Note 10 Note 11 Note 12 Note 4 0 0 4,800 0 1,815,112 0 1,815,112 1,815,112 4,800 1,819,912 1 .819.91 ~ 1,819,912 I �Council of Michigan Foundations Allen Fund Budget 2009-1 0 12 Month Projected 2008-09 Revenues Spendable Income Endowment Fund Member Contributions Additional Member Contributions Other Grants Conference Income Publications Other Income Investment Income Total Revenues Program Expenses Wages & Benefits Occupancy Telephone Equipment Lease & Maintenance Postage Supplies Insurance Equipment & Furniture Depreciation Technology Dues & Sponsorship Books & Subscriptions Communications/Publications Professional & Contracted Services Travel Training & Seminars Conference & Meeting Overhead Total Program Grants Challenge Grants Mini-Grants Computer Grants Other Grants Total Grants Excess Revenues Over Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance Transfer to Spendable Income Activity Ending Fund Balance S:\Finance\Budgets\09-1 0\Endowment Funds 09-10 Budget 2009-10 8,600 9,000 2,850 3,000 0 11,450 12,000 400 400 900 900 2,700 2,000 2,000 3,325 3,500 6,625 9,500 0 0 4,825 2,500 212,485 (8,600) (41 ,175) $162,710 162,710 (9,000) 2,500 $156,210 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Budget Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book budget Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book budget. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50754 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/904b071f36dfd10563e5e1a9a583a7fc.pdf ba3121fdb7ac5052e91533164a52c6f5 PDF Text Text CMF Council of Michigan Founcfations Serving grontmc*ers. A:lvonciflg giving. February 15, 2009 Memo to: Melonie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board of Trustees From: Rob Collier, President Re: 371h Annua l Conference Update - Integration with IS Attached is the latest DRAFT of the Memorandum of Understand ing (MOU) with Independent Sector (IS) on integration of our 3 71h Annual Conference with their Annual Conference on Wednesday, November 4 to Friday, November 6, 2009. I hope, with Melanie's approval as noted in the Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting, to sign this MOU before the Board Meeting in order to keep the process moving. Given the economy and Michigan's history and current status with IS, this is the time to try th is new collaboration. CMF will fonn a small Conference committee to focus on the following responsibilities: A Michigan Themed Plenary just for Michigan grantmakers on Wednesday, November 4 from I I :00 a.m. to I :00 p.m. Development of 9 concurrent sessions focusing on grantmakers- family foundations, community foundations, investment issues, etc. Development of six issue based site sessions for Thursday aftemoon between 2:30 and .5:30p.m. Development of one workshop for experienced gra ntmakers on Th ursday aftemoon - most likely in partnersh ip with GrantCraft Managing the Host event at the Detroit Institute of Arts on Wednesday evening, November 4, and Conducting our Annual Members Meeting Thursday moming at breakfast. In addition, 5 CMF members and 4 Michigan Nonprofit Leaders, plus me, are on the IS Program Committee, and 6 CMF members plus me are on the IS Host Committee, so there is great opportunity for collaboration on all fronts. I attended the IS {Program Committee Meeting on February 13 and reinforced the need for sessions on communications and diversity and incl usion - to name just two of our mutual priorities. The Host Committee still needs to raise $ 150,000 as Michigan's share and CMF must raise $IOO,OOO for our core budget, so I am grateful and fortunate to have Dave Lindberg and Kathy Ginocchio's help in keeping a c lose eye on the numbers. Through this collaboration, I am hopefu l that we will add more value for CMF members as well as help IS attract more grantmakers to its Annual Conference. Whi le the Opening and Closing Plenaries are still being developed by IS, I will confirm that an invitation has been sent to President Obama to join us all in Detroit. I look forward to responding to any questions you may have at the Board Meeting. �CMF Council of Michigan Fou ncfat ions Serving grantmaket$. AdM:Jncing giving. INDEPENDENT SECT OR A vir~ I voirP (()r 11' ::~1 MEMO RAN DUM OF UN DERSTAN DI NG Between Independent Sect or a nd Council of Michigan Foundations For Condu cting a Joint Co nferen ce February 13, 2009 It is the intention of Independent Sector (IS) and the Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF) to collaborate in bringing together their annual conferences for a jointly held gathering in 2009. This memo outlines the understanding of both orga nizations in relation to the roles and responsibilities of each in o rganizing, promoting, and financing the conference. DATE: November 4, 2009 to November 6, 2009 LOCATION: Detroit, Michigan PRIMA Y VENUE: Marriott Renaissance Hotel The J oint Confer ence IS and CMF agree that collaboration on the 2009 conference offers several benefits to our members and to the organizations. These include, but are not limited to: o Participants and potential sponsors of both organizations benefit from a single con ference registration fee. o Participants of both organizations benefit from the opportunity to interact with leaders they might not otherwise meet. o Participants of both organizations benefit from the programmatic experi ence of two organ izations. o IS benefits from the depth of reach and the reputation of the CMF in Michigan. o CMF benefits from the broad national reach and reputation of IS. o IS benefits from CMF's co nnection to local vendors, wh ich may help to reduce conference expenses, and IS has relationships with national vendors. As outlined in this memo, in some cases IS will "take the lead" in organizing activities and in some cases CMF wi ll " take the lead." When this language is used, it refers to which organization will have respo nsibility for initiating, maintaining the timeli ne for and overseeing details for any particular set of activities. �"In coordination with" refers to the expectation that wh ichever organization is initiating an activity, that organization wi ll communicate with and seek feedback from the other partnering organization. The conference will be referred to onsite and in all onsite materials as the 2009 Independent Sector & Council of Michigan Foundations Annual Conference. This wi ll be the language featured on on-site conference supplies including tote bags, signs, the program book, bio book and lanyards, etc. Both logos will appear on all materials. All conference registrants will have access to all open sessions, whether organized by IS or CMF- this includes plenary sessions, off-site sessions and break out sessions, except for the following: o The CEO Track is open to heads of member organizations of IS. There will be a cap of 40 participants for each regu lar CEO session, which will be marketed first to IS members (including those with joint IS I CMF membership). 10 seats in each session will be reserved for CMF members. All CEO sessio n registration is on a first-come basis. The CEO Summit will be fully open to all CEOs of IS and CMF members. o IS invitation only events include the President's reception and a special reception in honor of the Gard ner awardee. o CMF invitation only events: CMF Wednesday Plenary Lunch, Reception for Fo rum of African Americans in Philanthropy, CMF Board meeting & CMF Advisory cabinet meeting Program Development Attachment B shows an outline of the preliminary program schedule as of Jan. 28, 2009 The plenary sessions for the joint conference will be as follows: o Opening plenary on Wed nesday, November 4; beginning at I :30 pm o Conversation with a Sector Leader, on Thursday, November 5 o Luncheon plenary, on Thursday, November 5 o Awards dinner, on Thursday, November 5 o Closing plenary, on Friday, November 6 With input from CMF, IS will take the lead in developing conference plenary sessions. IS will seek input from CMF and keep CMF infom1ed of the overall design of plenary sessions but reserves the right to make the final decision on topics and plenary speakers. CMF leadership will have a ro le in the official opening and closing of the conference. There will be 5 time periods for break out sessions. o IS will take the lead in organizing 25 sessions which includes CEO sessions and Future Labs. �o CMF will take the lead in organizing 9 sessions, I workshop and 6 off-site sessions. The preliminary schedule of breakout sessions is as follows: IS Sessions Wed. PM Thurs. AM Thurs. PM I Thurs. PM 2 Fri. AM 3 3 2 3 2 Breakouts; 2 CEO; I Future Lab Breakouts; CEO Summit; I Future Lab Breakouts; 2 CEO; I Future Lab Breakouts; I CEO; I Future Lab Breakouts; I CEO; I Future Lab C M F Sessions 3 Breakouts 3 Breakouts 6 Off Site Cont inued 6 Off-Site 3 Breakouts IS and CM F will coordinate the topics, timing and speakers for the breakout sessions in an attempt to ensure that there is no duplication and that the overall program is coherent. However, IS and CMF each reserve the right to make the final decisions on topics and speakers for the break out sessions each designs. . IS and CMF will hold separate business meetings for their respective members during the breakfast plenary on Thursday, November 4. CM F will take the lead in organizing topics, speakers, location s and transportation for o ff-site sessions. CMF will have the final say on off-site session locations, topics and speakers. Any pre-conference programming (activities or sessions held prior to I :30 pm, Wednesday, November 4) will be organized separately by IS or CM F and pa id for through special registration or dedicated sponsorship funds . These separate sessions w ill be integrated into the registration system. • Pre-confe rence act ivities that are open to all participants at an additional cost include: the Public Policy Action Institute and the Globa l Issues Dinner. The CMF Opening Luncheon is limited to CMF members only and will be paid for separately from additional conference registration fees. NGEN pre-conference activities will be paid for with dedicated sponsorship funds and will be limited to participants under the age of 40. All conference attendees under the age of 40 are eligible to register for and attend NGen sessions. Logistics llotel Contract IS holds the contract with the Marriott Renaissance for all conference related activities. IS will provide a copy of the contract in full to CM Fin advance of completing th e ~o tJtL__ _____ _____ _ _________ Co mment [SRl]: We are m the process o f CJompleting the addendum neg01•at1ons \\'llh the hotel and ~Nill pro...-ide a copy of the contract as soon a~ 11 In coordination with CMF, IS will take the lead in working with the hotel to allocate meeting space for all sessions of the joint conference and any pre-conference 1S complete. �activities. The IS Conference Director will be the point person with the hotel in developing menus, providing guarantees, placing A V orders, etc. and will review final plan with CMF. A CMF staff person will be assigned to work on site with the IS Conference Director. • Hotel G uestroom Block: IS and CM F acknowledge the following gues troo m rates: $184.00 Single/D ouble (excl uding 15% tax) $204.00 Triple (excluding 15% tax) $224.00 Q uad (excluding 15% tax) • JS will take the lead and manage, in coordination with CMF, the sleeping room block for the joint con ference. • Jn addition to the assigned sleeping rooms, one hospitality suite will be reserved for CM F Family Foundations • IS and Ci\!1 F agree tO the following guestroom block: D ate 11/1/09 11/2/09 11/3/09 11/4/09 11/5/09 11 /6/09 11/7/09 TOTAL Day Sun Mon Tue Wed T hu Fri Sat IS Block 10 20 134 32 1 325 60 3 873 IS Upgrad e 0 0 5 5 0 0 IS Suites 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 15 3 5 CMF CMF CMF Block 0 0 40 120 120 0 0 280 Suites Up grades 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 6 T otal 10 20 167 530 534 60 3 1,179 • JS and CMF agree to pay, as part of the conference costs, liqu idated damages. Liquidated damages are defined as the difference between [80%] of the room night co mmitment f1 ,324] and the joint conference actual usage, multiplied by the average group rate. Any damages will be considered as part of the joint conference expenses. The food and beverage minimum agreed to with the hotel is $130,000 . O ther L<>gistics IS will take the lead in working with irs production company tO create the staging and produce (lighting, audio and visual) the plenary sessions. IS will seek inp ut from CM Fin developing the overall look o f the staging. IS will be responsible for making the final decisions on staging and use of the production company. In coordination with IS, CMF will take the lead in working with the Host Reception venue to develop menu s, decor, entertainment and transportation. �Both IS and CM F will provide on site staffing to manage all logistical and programmatic aspects of the conference. In advance of the conference IS and CMF will work together to develop a staff assignment plan, and work out the detai ls of superv ision. IS and CMF will work together to develop a staff resource guide and briefing materials. E xhibit Ha ll • Jn coordination with CM F, JS will take the lead managing the registration p rocess and o nsite activities related tO the conference exhibitio n and exhibitors. Th e exhibit hall features and activities include: Confere nce Books tore Cyber Cafe N etwork ing Lounge Confere nce Materials distribu tio n area Coffee Break s Receptions Book Signings With input from IS, CMF w ill take the lead in locating and managing the cyber cafe vendor and the bookstore. The bookstore is a local book seller, generally with broad access to publishers and authors that focus on the nonprofit sector. The store is located in the exhibit hal l. CMF will work with the store to especially make availab le the books offered by conference speakers and will work with thei r publishers to organize any book signings. JS's contracted vendor, Free man, will serve as the o fficial vendor for supplying exhibit booths, as well as the exhibition entrance u nit, lo unge fu rniture and o cher fu rnishing needs. Ex pense Budget IS and CMF will agree to a Master Budget that incorporates all direct conference related expenses (Attachment B). o Any additional expenses incurred by either organization will be the individual responsibility of that organization. This includes but is not limited to salary, benefits and indirect costs. For the purpose of determining whether a surplus or budget exists after all revenues and expenses are accounted for, the actual expenditures related to the Master Budget will be compared to the total of registration fees, exhib it fees, program advertisements and any funds ra ised jointly by IS and CM F. o If these so urces do not cover the actual expenditures, IS and CM F will be required to cover any deficit proportional to the number of registrants attributed to each organization. It will be assumed that all Michigan based �o foundations will be considered CM F registrants and all others will be IS registrants. If there is a surplus of funds from registration fees, exhibit fees, program advertisements and any sponsorsh ip funds raised jointly, the funds wi ll be distributed to IS and CM F proportional to the number of registrants attributed to each o rganization. It will be assumed that all Michigan based foundations wi ll be considered CMF registrants and all others will be IS registrants. IS will manage the expense budget and will pay all expenses incurred ou t of the conference proceeds which include but are not limited to registration fees, exhibit fees, program advertisements, and any funds raised. o IS will provide projected budget expense updates to CMF momhly. o IS will infom1 CMF in advance of any potential changes to the budget that increases or decreases a line-item by 15% or more if the impact is greater than $1 ,000. o IS and CMF w ill work together to find ways to minimize expenses. Shortly after December 31 , 2009 IS will provide a preliminary accounting to CM F of all expenses incurred against the Master Budget and will provide an update shortly afier January 31, 20 I 0. IS will provide CM F with detail expenses as requested. lf CMF receives an invoice for joint conference expenses the invoice will be sent to IS for payment. Any out of pocket expenses incurred by CM F th at nrc part of the joint conference budget shall be reimbursed by IS monthly. Scholarships for conference participants will not be part of the joint budget. Registration and Exhibit Fees One registration site will service all conference registrants. IS will contract with the registration company to develop a single site th at can be accessed through either the IS websi te o r the CM F website. All acti vities for the joint conference and any special pre-conference activ ities will be listed on this s ite~ L---~~--~~-IS will engage CMF in discussion of what elements to include on the site 0 and will share draft copy for comments. o CMF wi ll provide draft copy for any portions of the site specific to its special pre-con ference activities or break out sessions, as appropriate. o Any changes to registration deadlines, rates or offering of special registration rate programs will be decided jointly by IS and CM F. o IS and C M F will work w ith the registration vendor to find an acceptable way to incorporate CMF member data into the registration system for processing. Comment [SR2]: The regis1ra1ion llltt conneCIIi to the IS conference "'eb!>ite. ll1s no1the u:me site. �IS and CMF will have full access to the administrative sections of the registration site so that both organizations ca n view progress on registrations, revenue and view the list of registrants. Revenue intended as support for the Master Budget - including registration fees, exhibit fees-- will be collected by IS by check or credit card from individual regisn·ants to cover direct conference expenses. (See above for distribution of any surplus or handling of any deficit). IS will share with CMF its weekly compilation ofregisn·ation data. See Attachment C fo r proposed registration and exhibito r fees. Speakers will not be charged a registration fee to attend the conference session at which they are speaking. If they elect to attend any other sessions, they will be requ ired to pay the appropriate rate .. Fundraising IS and CMF will develop and agree to a list of local and national donors to include in a joint fundraising strategy and wh ich donors each organization wi ll approach separately. (Sec Attachment D for joint prospects and individual prospects- TO BE ATTACHED) IS and CMF will develop a coordinated strategy, set of messages and approaches for joint fundraising and wi ll keep each other informed of separate proposals to ensure there is no duplication or overlap. Funds raised as part of the j oint strategy will be allocated to support the direct conference costs as spelled out in the Master Budget. Any surplus funds raised jointly will be allocated to each organization proportional to the number of registrants attributed to each organization. It w ill be assumed that all Michigan based foundations will be co nsidered CMF registrants and all others will be IS registrants. Promotions In coordination with CMF, IS wi ll take the lead in developing the graphic look and content for conference promotional and marketing materials. IS will be responsible for managing designers, printers, copywriters and any other vendors that will be a part of creating marketing/promotional materials for the annual conference. IS and CMF will work together to effectively blend the graphic standards of their individual organization brands into the overall design of conference materials .. CMF will be given the opportunity to review promotional materials to ensure �accuracy in the graphic look and copy content and positioning of CM F programming. IS wi ll have final approval of promotional materials. Marketing materials for the joint con ference will be written and designed so that IS and CMF can adapt the conference name/title when distrib uting to their respective audiences. Uses for targeting to each organization 's stakeholders include: IS & CMF websites, electronic post cards, emails, and letter distribution, flyers/handbill distributions, speeches, etc. CMF will have final approval of promotional materials going to Michigan foundations, which are not IS members. IS may send materials to its existing members in Michigan. Distribution of marketing materials will be handled in the following way: o o o CMF will promote to CMF members and non-member Michigan foundations IS will promote to its membership which includes Michigan based fo undations Each organization will use its own existing distrib ution methods; print materials will be paid for from the joint budget The acceptable con ference names to be used in promotional materials distributed in advance of the conference arc: o 2009 Independent Sector Annual Conference in Partnership with the Council of Michigan Foundations o 2009/S Annual Conference in Partnership with CMF o 2009 Council of Michigan Foundations Annual Conference in Partnership with Independent Sector o 2009 CMF Annual Conference in Partnership with IS The acceptable conference name on-site wi ll be: 2009 Independent Sector & Council of Michigan Foundations Annual Conferences In coordination with CMF, IS will take the lead on materials d istributed to conference participants, including the program, and speaker bio book. Materials distrib uted to conference participants wi ll be co-branded, dual logos, equally balanced. For information distinct to CMF- organization description and background information, session descriptions, and speaker bio information CMF wi ll provide copy to IS to incorporate into the full prof,•Tam. IS will send preliminary copy of the full program to CMF for comment and input. IS reserves the right to final decision on program copy. In coordination with CMF, IS will take the lead in developing methods for surveying conference participants, including the development of a questionnaire distributed to registrants at the conference's conc lusion. �Both IS and CMF will receive copies of audio and visual materials resulting from the conference, including photographs taken by the conference photographer, video and audio tape of plenary sessions, and transcripts of plenary sessions. CMF will take the lead in locating and hiring a photographer for the conference. CM F and IS will coordinate developing a list of desired shots in advance of the conference, and the photographer's schedule shall be negotiated between the organizations and finalized one week prior to the conference. IS and CMF will share their respective media outreach plans by May I. Media outreach activities include calendar announcements, interviews (pre-conference, during, and post-conference), editorial board visits, press conferences, etc. IS's CEO will serve as the p rimary media spokesperson for any media interviews generated by IS staff or board members. CMF's CEO will serve as the primary media spokesperson for any media interviews generated by CM F staff or board members. ,IS staff wi ll alert CM F to any med ia outreach plans or unanticipated opportunities in Michigan. The authorized representatives of IS and CMF agree to the terms of this Memorandum by signing below: For Independent Sector Date For Co uncil on Michigan Foundations Date � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Conference-Committee Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book conference committee Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book conference committee. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50755 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/46686e3866252e1d1239412c809a31a7.pdf 0c01a2d16bc5737cbf2b6c5e4fc110fd PDF Text Text CMF Council of Michigan Founaations Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. February 13, 2009 Memo to: Melonie B. Colaianne, Chairperson Members of the Board of Trustees From: Kimberly Burton, Vice President, Corporate Services and Director of Diversity and Inclusive Practices cc: Caroline Chambers, Chairperson, Corporate Committee Re: Proposed 2009/2010 Corporate Committee Work Plan Goal: To provide resources to CMF Corporate Members that support CMF recruitment and retention goals by enhancing current involvement with SE Michigan members formed as the Business Contributions Council (BCC), and bridging connections to enhance outreach among corporate members and prospects in all parts of the State. Objectives: I. Provide Resources to Corporate Foundation Members • Establish Bi-Monthly Meetings for CMF/BCC members in a more Central location. (Identify relevant topics and appropriate presenters/speakers) • Create Communication Resources and Information Services for Corporate Members 1. Conduct Training Assessment Survey of current corporate members and need for additional training in the field of philanthropy. 2. Conduct annual charitable contribution plan/program survey. 3. Create Corporate ListServe to enhance communication and information sharing. 4. Create web-based on-demand survey results. II. • Promote Corporate Participation at CMF Annual Conference 1. Partner with I.S. (Independent Sector) on Corporate networking opportunity • Host One Day Corporate Conference and/or Network Opportunity (20 10) Retain Current Corporate Foundation Members • Establish partnership between CMF and Detroit Renaissance by providing resources to enhance experience of Business Contributions Council (DR Members) • CMF to invite BCC members to participate in ongoing and new programming opportunities; (DAG, CMF Webinars, Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship) • Expand CMF/BCC membership to include Corporate Foundations from Western and Central Michigan. �Corporate Committee Report February 2009 Page 2 • • III. Access to CMF Foundation Liaison; V.P. Corporate Services Conduct Member N eeds Assessment Survey Recruit New Corporate Giving Programs to Become CMF Members Conduct Research to Establish Recruitment Goals Within the State (Benchmark peer associations corporate member ratios; Identify number of Fortune 1000 companies in state and evaluate current giving outreach, etc.) • Outreach to Non-members on the Benefits of Membership through Current Member Call Plan and/or other method regarding benefits of Advocacy, Networking, Education/Knowledge, News and Information; Partnership with Small Business Association of Michigan (SBAM) Resources and Research. • CMF Colleague "Member Retention Call to Action - Contact corporate members who have discontinued their membership. Phone Calls; E-mails; ENews; Websites • Next Steps: • • • • Meeting with Detroit Renaissance/BCC to propose a work plan for SE MI (Late February I Early March) Research and Data Gathering to present at first meeting (Q 1) Communication to all current and prospective Corporate members regarding meeting plan and Invitation to Kick Off Meeting- central location (Q2) o Presentation of first round of benchmark resources Active engagement in CMF/IS joint conference plan (Begin Q2) Key Resource Partners • Detroit Renaissance • Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship • The Conference Board • Other Regional Associations of Grantmakers � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Corporate-Committee Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book corporate committee Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book corporate committee. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50756 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/db4676295ca8a67d7f356a8d882419bb.pdf e08a17310afeb7c5e308e576d9590fe7 PDF Text Text Policy Review: Council of Michigan Foundations' Transforming Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Prepared November 2008 by: The Community Research Institute The Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University �Policy Review - CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... .......................... .... 3 Purpose ........... ........................................................................................................ .......................... ......................... 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ .............................. 3 Discussion of Policies O verall ......................................................................................................... .............................. 4 Necess ity ofPolicies ............................................................................................... .......................... ........................ .4 CMF's Policies O verall ............................................................. .................................................. ............................. .4 Incorporation of Diversity and Inclusion in CMF's Policie s ..... .................................................. ............................. .4 Discussion of Staff-related Policies ............................................................................ .......................... ......................... 5 HR Procedure .............................................................................................................................. .............................. 5 Employee Handbook ................................................................................................................... .............................. 5 Equity ........ ......................................................................................................... ..................... .............................. 5 Inclusion .................................................................................................................................. .............................. 5 Discussion of Board-related Policies ............................................................................................................................. 6 Trustee Conflict of Interest/Code of Conduct ......................................................... .......................... ......................... 6 Bylaw s ......................................................................................................................................... .............................. 6 Discussion of Me mber-related Po licies ............... ..................................................................................................... ..... 7 Membership Criteria ............................................................................................... .......................... ......................... 7 Bylaw s ......................................................................................................................................... .............................. ? Discussion of Diversity and Jnclus ivity o f Policy-make rs ............................................................... .............................. 7 Diversity of Policy -makers ........................................................ ............................. .......................... ......................... 7 Inclusion of Staff in Policy De ve lopment. ................................................................................... .............................. 7 Diversity Efforts as Organizational Change ........ ............................................................................ .............................. 8 Leadership ..... ..................................................................................................... .... ..................... .............................. 8 Organizational Culture ............................................................................................................................................... 8 The Role of Policy in CMF' s Transforming Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative ......... 9 Appendix I: List of Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Appendix JJ: Rubric for Rev iew ing Policies ................................. .................................................. ............................ 11 Appendix JJI: Interview Questions .............................................................................................................................. 12 Appendix TV: Literature Review of Organizational Cu lture, Organizational Change, and Diversity ......................... 13 Organizational Culture ............................................................................................................................................. l3 Dive rsity ................................................................................................................. ................................................. 13 Organizational Change ........................................................................................... ..................... ............................ 14 Leadership and Change ................................................................................................................ ............................ l4 Organizational Culture and Organizational Change ............................................... ................................................. 15 Jnclusiv ity and Organizational Change ............................................................... ..................................................... l5 The Role of Diversity and Inclus ion in Organizational Culture and Change ..... ......................... ............................ 15 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... .................................................... 17 References .............................................................................................................. ..................... ............................ 18 2 �Policy Review - CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Introduction Purpose The Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF) approached the Community Research Institute (CRT) at the Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University to undertake research and evaluation associated with CMF's Transforming Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative. Several specific elements make up the body of the research, including: a survey of M ichigan foundations to quantify the demographics of organized philanthropy's staffs and boards, a survey of CMF's staff and board regarding their attitudes and perceptions of diversity, tracking of CMF's external activities surrounding diversity, tracking of recognition ofCMF as a leader in diversity, and a review ofCMF's policies to determine how integral diversity and inclu sion are thereto. This report focuses on that policy review; CRTdeveloped the methodology below to examine CMF's policies and policy development processes. Methodology CRT conducted a comprehensive rev iew of the literature surrounding diversity in organizational policies and established that there is no standard format for reviewing the role of d iversity in policy. CRT then looked to the philanthropic literature to examine the potential for diversity in policy (please see Appendix I for a list of some of the resources). T his literature review allowed CRI to outline best practices in the sector and to form these practices into a rubric to be used when reading CMF's policies (please see Appendix II for this rubric). One key finding is that d iversity and inclusion should permeate multiple policies rather than acting as a standalone policy. CRT then read and analyzed all of the written policies which CMF had provided. While the rubric was a useful tool in this process, CRT focused mainly on the following two questions: In this section or e lement of the policy, is there a way that diversity and inclusion should be incorporated? If there is a way that d iversity and inclusion should be integrated into this section of the policy, to w hat extent does CMF take the oppornmity to incorporate them? Beyond the examination of the policy documents themselves, CRT interviewed the entire staff of CMF as well as the Council' s Board Chair, immediate past Board Chair, and Governance Committee Chair (p lease see Appendix III for interview questions). The purpose of these interviews was to assess: how included staff and board are in policy development, how accessible policies are to staff and board members, and how d iverse the policy makers are. 3 �Policy Review- CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Discussion of Policies Overall Necessity of Policies One way to analyze policies is to focus on how they facilitate the way people work together for a unified cause in the organization and the extent to which the policies ensure that people are moving in the same d irection. Policies can take the form of rules, regulations, standards, decisions, and visions. Written policies serve as a skeleton to support the work of an institution and can solidify informal practices to prevent divergent work. Moreover, policies can also communicate an organization's values and methods to external audiences. Policies work to formalize and document the work of an institution and are therefore affected by organizational culture, internal environmen t, and leadership. Written policies can strengthen, reinforce, and even catalyze these means of guiding an organization's practices. Clearly w ritten, policies allow an organization to have a precise, unified understanding of expectations and standards, and can provide a means for accountability (assuming that policies are implemented equitably). CMF's Policies Overall The most immediately noticeable aspect ofCMF's policies is that they are brief and few in number. The Bylaws and the Emp loyee Handbook comprise the bulk of written policies, and interviewees stated that they are comfortable with accessing these documents on the organization's shared drive and receiving annual updates via email and meetings. The limited quantity of policies is intentional. During the course of the interviews it became c lear that many of the staff thought that increased policies would be burdensome. The limited nature of the policies allows for flexibility and nimbleness, which many interviewees cited as critical to CMF's ability to react to increased community diversity in the future. This type of fluidity is specifically stated in the Employee Handbook: " In order to retain the flexibility necessary to the effective administration of policies and procedures, CMF reserves the right to change, revise, or eliminate any of the policies ... described in th is 'Handbook' ... " While there are benefits to having policies which are small in scale, some anecdotes from the interviews suggest that a minimal emphasis on policy has created some confusion about policies and feelings that certain informal practices are not adequately documented-therefore potentially inhibiting equitable implementation. Incorporation of Diversity and Inclusion in CMF's Policies Considering CMF's relatively limited number of policies, it is no t surprising that some of the policies includ ed in best practice models for incorporating diversity and inclusion are not present. For instance, CMF does not have a policy stating that it strives to deal with diverse vendors, but there are no policies related to vendors at a ll. It is important to note that a lack of policy does not necessarily translate to a lack of practice-CMF may very well make every effort to do business with diverse vendors. Stated policies, however, can help solidify and nurture practices, especially if they are associated with defined goals (to continue the vendor example, a goal may be to receive 30% of supplies and services from diverse vendors). With this in mind, the policies CMF does have varied in the degree to which they incorporate diversity and inclusion. Most of the policies integrate gender inclusive language and some of them encourage inclusivity in practice such as hiring and holiday time off. In fact, one of CMF's values is Inclusion, and the organization has a c lear, multifaceted "Value on Inclusion" statement. The next three sections of this report deal with the role of diversity and inclusion in policies specifically related to CMF's staff, board, and membership. They are broken up into present strengths of the policies' incorporation of diversity and inclusion and potential areas to become even more inclusive. 4 �Policy Review- CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Discussion of Staff-related Policies HR Procedure P resen t: The document entitled Policies and Procedures Handbook and labeled " HR Procedure" is a brief two-page overview ofCMF's procedures for hiring and exiting. One element of this policy is especially strong regarding diversity and inclusion, while some other statements could be augmented to better incorporate these values. T he policy specifically states that job postings will be sent to "publications that target minority candidates." This is evidence that CMF is actively attempting to attract a d iverse workforce. Poten tia l: To improve further, the policy could state the extent to which questions pertaining to d iversity and inclusion are to be included in interviews (both pre-selection and exit). Further enhancing the section on interviews, CMF could state that applicants will be interviewed by a diverse panel, as d ifferent points of view may provid e a richer insight as to wh ich candidate would be optimal. Stating that new employees receive copies of the employee handbook and diversity and inclusion value statement on their first day of work would also help exemplify CMF's value of inclusion in the "HR Procedure" section. Employee Handbook The employee handbook comprises one of the largest parts of CMF's written policies. The areas of this document pertaining to diversity and inclusion can be roughly divided into two classifications: equity and inclusion. Equity Presen t: There are several sections of the employee handbook that deal with diversity as it relates to fairness or dictated by law. CMF' s equal employment opportunity policies are mentioned on the employee acknowledgement form at the front of the handbook. Later in the document, the "Equal Employment Opportunity" section discusses CMF's anti-discrimination policy and describes how an employee can report discrimination, but there is no mention of encouraging diversity. The section on harassment is exemplary. It prohibits harassment based upon numerous factors (race, ethnicity, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.) in addition to sex and protects employees w ho report threatening treatment. The policy goes on to state that no t only is the harassment of one staff member by another forbidden, an employee's mistreatment of anyone w hile o n CMF business o r a member or vendor's harassment of a CMF staff member will also face disciplinary or legal action. This policy is strong in its commitment to humane, equitable treatment for all stakeholders and community members. P otential: There is a difference between preventing and punishing discrimination and actively promoting diversity; the "Equal Employment Opportunity" section could mention that CMF strives for a diverse staff. The "WhistleBlower/Code of Conduct" section could add inclusion to the list of values ("respect, fairness, and integrity"). The policy related to harassment could be more inclusive by amending the section proscribing sexual harassment using CMF computer resources to state that hate-related/discriminatory material of any kind, regardless of basis, is forbidden. Inclusion P r esen t: In addition to the more equity-related policies, the employee handbook has several sections that successfully incorporate inclusivity. At the start of the handbook, CMF states its Mission, Goals, and Values. As mentioned above, inclusion is one ofCMF's Values, and the handbook goes on to spell out specific points of th is value. CMF allows staff time off to celebrate holidays and to opt out of paid holidays. This type of benefit shows a sensitivity toward employees who celebrate culturally- or religiousl y-specific holidays and also provides an 5 �Policy Review- CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative opportunity for staff members to discuss their religions or cultures at work, encouraging cultural competency. A further strength of the employee handbook is that it uses gender-inclusive language throughout. Potential: The employee handbook also had a few areas which could be improved to better showcase CMF's value of inclusion. The "Work Schedules" section could add a statement regarding scheduling flexibility for religious, cultural, or personal reasons. The " D ress Code" could encourage individuals to feel comfortable wearing ethnic clothing. There is no mention of whether or not fathers or adoptive parents may use short-term disability benefits for pregnancy, birth, and adoption purposes. While policies are in place providing professional development and tuition reimbursement for all staff members, a statement encouraging employees who are traditionally underrepresented in management positions to take advantage of these benefits would help highlight of methods used by CMF to create a pipeline for diverse leadership. Lastly, the immigration section could reiterate CMF's value of inclusion of persons of diverse national origins. Discussion of Board-related Policies Trustee Conflict of Interest/Code of Conduct Potential: The 2008 Trustee Conflict of Interest/Code of Conduct Policy is a one page document followed by a space in which trustees can report potential conflicts of interest. This brief policy uses gender inclusive language, but there are a couple of areas which could be strengthened to better exemplify CMF's value of inclusion. The "Statement of Position" allows trustees to comment on their opinions, regard less of conflict of interest. This section could be expanded to highlight that CMF values diverse opinions and encourages trustees from diverse backgrounds to participant in all discussions. This document could also include a statement regarding trustees' duty to uphold CMF's value of inclusion when dealing on CMF's behalf. Bylaws Potential: A large portion ofCMF's bylaws deal with its board of trustees and various committees. Diversity and inclusion are not nearly as incorporated into this document as they are in the employee handbook. When describing the qualifications of trustees, officers, and committees, there is no mention of encouraged diversity. This may be because these individuals are selected through voting rather than an application process. If this is the case, CMF could still state that it encourages members to be cognizant of d iversity in their voting, thereby nurturing an organizational culture that values inclusion. The bylaws call for one youth trustee under 30, but given generational differences in viewpoints, it may be more effective to have both a young adult trustee and a youth trustee (such as a YACer). However, CMF may deem this unnecessary, given the youth involvement in the Michigan Community Foundations' Youth Project Advisory Committee. CMF is heavily focused upon diversity and inclusion, and it may be advisable for the board to establish a Diversity and Inclusion Committee. In the statement that the Board is responsible for compensation decisions, there could be a sentence stating that the Board is conscientious to provide equitable pay to all. The final recommendation for the bylaws dealing with trustees is that the word "Chair" would be more inclusive than "Chairman." 6 �Policy Review - CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Discussion of Member-related Policies As a membership organization, CMF's membership affects (and is often at the heart of) the organization's policies. As mentioned above, the members' voting on the Board may prevent CMF from including a diversity statement in its bylaws related to trustee selection. Some interviewees mentioned that because CMF is a membership organization with a constituency covering the full spectrum of political, cultural, and other viewpoints it is often difficult for the organization to move in any given direction without upsetting some part of the membership. T his is a constant concern in the minds of staff and board members. Membership Criteria Potential: The Criteria for Membership document outlines what types of organizations may be members of CMF. There a few considerations the organization may wish to discuss to encourage a more inclusive membership. First, CMF may want to require members to have an internal anti-discrimination or diversity statement regarding its grantmaking and/or board and staff. Second, the minimum annual grantmaking amount may deter new foundatio ns from traditionally underrepresented populations from becoming members. Lastly, some ethnic groups practice less formal methods of philanthropy which cannot be covered by CMF's current membership criteria. IfCMF could develop a way to include practitioners of these types of philanthropy, it could greatly diversify its membership. Bylaws Potential: CMF's bylaws begin by focusing on membership. This opening section does not specify intentional efforts to attract diverse members or to address issues of less formal philanthropic practices. The sections devoted to member voting and participation do not specifically state that CMF encourages the inclusion of diverse member voices. Discussion of Diversity and lnclusivity of Policy-makers Part of the interviews with staff and board members focused upon the diversity of those involved in policy development and how included interviewees felt their voices were in policy making processes. Diversity of Policy-makers One way to demonstrate transparently that an organization values diversity is to have a diverse group of policymakers. An interesting finding from the interviews was that there was no common definition of the policy development process. There were a number of unique perspectives on who makes policy. Despite the heterogeneity of responses, the re was still general consensus that those involved in policymaking are not very diverse, but there is a certain amount of generational difference and some d iversity of thought among policy makers. It was also pointed out that a recent audit of the personnel policy was undertaken by a group that was diverse in terms ofrace and sexual orientation. Inclusion of Staff in Policy Development A key differentiator between diversity and inclusion is that inclusion actively draws upon the diverse backgrounds of present stakeholders-including staff-in the development of policies and practices. About half of CMF's staff feel that they are included or their voices are part of the policy development process, while the other ha lf does not feel involved in the process but would feel comfortable voicing their opinions and needs if they thought it were necessary. Further, there was very little mention of policy being overly top-down or of staff members' worrying of repercussions should they recommend policy change, suggesting the environment nurtures the inclusion of board and staff. 7 �Policy Review- CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Diversity Efforts as Organizational Change An institution's effort to d iversify its staff and board and/or to become more culturally competent can be considered a type of organ izational change. A review of the literature suggests that among the many facets of an organization that can affect organizationa l change, two of the most critical are: 1. L ea d er ship - Effective organizational change is driven from the top-down. The leader of the institution 1 must be dedicated to the change and inspi re the rest of the staff to join in the effort • 2. O r ga n ization a l C ult u re - The definition of organizational culture is somewhat broad, encompassing the many factors which can influence how it develops in different institutions. Generally, o rganizational cul ture consists of a variety of influences deemed relevant and given meaning by the organization, includ ing symbols (words a nd objects), heroes and heroines (people who characterize the insti tution's 2 mission and goals), rituals wh ich fulfill a particular role within the organization, and unspoken values • The interviews of staff and board members did not deal d irectly with leadership and cu lture. These themes did, however, arise during the course of the interviews. Leadership Policies are inextricably related to leadership. A leader may d irect an organization's work by setting policy, while at the same time being beholden to the same body of policies. Components of leadership and its relationship to policies were a theme in the interviews. There was some mention of inequity in the implementation of policies or ad hoc decisions made which are perceived as preferential treatment, which may stem from the aforementioned relatively small scale of CMF's policies. While interviewees cited this small quantity of policies as beneficial for increased flexib ility, they also mentioned that limited policies or inconsistent implementation thereof can affect team unity. Interviewees also discussed communication. It is perceived by some interviewed that CMF's various leaders have different communication and overall leadership styles. These differences-especially in a small organization-can be confusing to stakeholders and impair unity. This communication carries over to CMF ' s Transforming M ichigan P h ilanthropy through D iversi ty and Inclusion Ini tiative. While some interviewees offered praise for the leadership of this initiative, others were confused, citing a lack of c larity in the communication of what these efforts mean, especiall y to the day-to-day operations of CMF. Leadership needs to be sure that they tru ly und erstand diversity and can clearly explain this to staff and board members. Finally, there were some mentions about the d iversity of the leadership itself. Some interviewees stated that th ey would appreciate a more diverse leadership, would like to continue to bring diverse youths' voices into CMF, and/or would like to develop a p ipeline to help you ng stakeholders move up into leadership positions. Organizational Culture The literature suggests that an organization must have a unified cu lture if it is to move forward and undertake organizational change. The leader should be able to enhance cultural e lements which are conducive to the desired change and minimize those which detract from the goal. W hile the interviews focused upon policy a nd diversity, it was c lear that interviewees did not share a common culture. There are three main factors creating factions among staff and board members. First, C MF has two maj or offices (in G rand Haven and Detroit). Interviewees noted the difficulty of maintaini ng a sense of unity w ith two offices which interact minimally and have mi nimal duplication in job ro le. Second, w ithin each of these offices there are strong, separate a llegiances along ro le, generation, and p hysical location lines. Third, there is a pervasive sense of internal and external staff. Internal staff takes care of the day-to -day operations of CMF but have little interaction with the Board or members. External staff mem bers, on the o ther hand, are very focused upon the Board and membership. The perpetuation of these two d istinct foci hamper the unification of stakeholders needed to undertake an effort to increase d iversity, inclusion , and cu ltural competency. 1 Lakomski, G. (200 I). Organizational change, leadership, and learning: culture as cognitive process. The International Journal of Educational Management. 15(2), 68-77. 2 Waters, L V. (2004). Cultivate corporate culture and diversity. Nursing Management. 35(1), 36-37, 50. 8 �Policy Review- CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative The Role of Policy in CMF's Transforming Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative The ultimate question for this research must be: how well do CMF's policies set the organization up for success in the Transforming Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative? CMF's policies are limited in scale-a quality which several interviewees identify as being critical to the organization's nimbleness. This a lso means that many of the organization's stances are manifest in practice rather than in policy. Whi le organizations can effectively balance policy and practice in many ways, if practices are not standardized using policies, the organization must be sure that practices are aligned using some other mechanism. As mentioned above, a lack of standard practices can lead to perceived inequity and, ultimately, can hamper organizational cultural unity. Therefore, as CMF focuses upon an ambitious initiative such as Transforming Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion, which requires cultural unity, it may be advisable to be certain that all policies and practices are executed in a standardized manner. In addition to uniting the organization's culture in general, CMF must also be sure that this culture is supportive of the organization' s diversity and inclusion efforts. Organizational change to build an exemplarily diverse and inclusive organization will be best served through a process that is transparently diverse and inclusive. To facilitate this, CMF should be sure to include staff and board members in developing its d iversi ty and inclusion efforts and communicate clearly where the organization is in the development-implementation-completion continuum. This process will insure the highest level of organ izational stakeholder and constituent buy-in. Some interviewees noted that as CMF undertakes the Transforming Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative the organization has an opportunity to model best practice by increasing internal diversity. They recommended seizing that opportunity. Some asked how CMF would be able to promote diversity externally when the organization is not internally diverse and incl usive. Efforts are definitely being made to increase diversity and inclusion CMF's staff and board, but nearly all in terviewees ci teclthe organization's heaclcp!arters' location (G rancl Haven) as a roaclhlock to increasecl in ternal diversity . These assertions are not unfounded. The 2000 United States Census data show that 4.8% of the population of Grand Haven, and the four surrounding townships (Crockery, Grand Haven, Robinson, and Spring Lake Townships) are persons of color. The number of persons of color age 25 and over with a Bache lor's Degree or higher in that region in 2000 was approximately 250. Regardless of these low numbers, CMF must not allow Grand Haven's demographics to prevent the hiring of future diverse staff members. Successfully uti lizing satellite offices or relocating the office would be two potential solutions to work around Grand Haven's relative homogene ity. 9 �Policy Review- CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Appendix 1: List of Resources The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (n.d.). Race matters: Organizational Self-Assessment. Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Brown, W.A. "Inclusive Governance Practices in Nonprofit Organizations and Implications for Practice". Nonprofit Management and Leadership 12(4), Wiley Periodical2002, 369-385. Burbidge, L. C., Diaz, W. A., Odendahl, T., & Shaw, A. (2002). The Meaning and Impact ofBoard and Staff· Diversity in the Philanthropic Field. Joint Affinity Groups. Daley, J. M. (2002). "An action guide for nonprofit board diversity". Journal ofCommunily Practice, 10(1), 33. The Denver Foundation (2003). Inside Inclusiveness: Race, Ethnicity and Nonprofit Organizations. Denver: The Denver Foundation. Marquis, J.P., Lim, N., Scott, L. M., Harrell, M. C., & Kava naugh, J. (2008). Managing Diversity in Corporate America: An Exploratory Analysis. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. Pless, N. M. & Mack, T. (2004). Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles, Processes and Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 129-147. Pond, A. (2008). The Business Case for Diversity in Health Care Interviews with Health Care Executives on Behalf ofthe California Endowment. Thomas, D. A. & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing D iversity. Harvard Business Review. September-October, 79-90. Whatcom Council ofNonprofits. (n.d.). Best Practices for Executive Directors and Boards of Nonprofit Organizations. Bellingham, W A : Whatcom Council ofNonprofits. The following internal documents: The Center for Effective Philanthropy- Diversity and Inclusiveness Policy NYRAG - Best Practices & Resources United Way Capital Area- Inclusiveness Policy Heart of West M ichigan United Way- Diversity Policy Kalamazoo Community Foundation - Diversi ty Policy Kalamazoo Community Foundation- Inclusiveness Statements Surdna Foundation: Resources: Inclusiveness and D iversity Diversity - The San Francisco Foundation Contacts made to find further resources: - Alliance for Nonprofit Management's Cultural Competency Institute - Renee Branch -The Denver Foundation - Gardenswartz and Rowe - Larry McGill -Minnesota Council on Foundations -Nationa l Network of Consultants to Grantmakers 10 �Policy Review- CMF's T ransforming Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Appendix II: Rubric for Reviewing Policies £ :g ~ <>., g_l! <~ Aspect of Policy ~ 0. § ~ .I> < i .... 0 """ i i < < 1]~ .:!: <>., ~§ .... 0 00 » ll) ~ ~~ .5 ~ -2 0 -I 0 -I -2 0 0 0 -I -I -I -2 -2 -2 0 -I -2 0 0 -I -I -2 -2 0 0 -I -I -2 -2 The nre;Jlninlfinn lnoks In rtiverse cnnslilucnl '- :mrt vnlunlecrs for pnlenlilll St:lffmem hers. 0 -I -2 Diversity is emphasized in the o rganization's: Staff Exte rnal Stakeholders (C lients, grantees, members, beneficiaries, etc.) Committees/subcommittees 0 0 0 -I -I -I -2 -2 -2 Diversity is cornerstone to progr.1m development- sensitive to the diverse needs of diverse •roups. The organization is actively responsive to cultural differences in the community. Diversity is emphasized in the organization 's: Consultants/panelists/speakers/presenters Vendors Resources and communicat ion materials Financial investments 0 0 -I -I -2 -2 0 0 0 0 -I -I -I -I -2 -2 -2 -2 The organizat ion incorporates diversity into its internal and external communication tools. The organizatio n provides learning opportunities fo r the community regarding diversity The o rganizatio n's stance on diversity is publicized. and the community is e n 'aged in discourse on diversity. The organization engages di verse g roups within the Jar 'er community to understand how the or ·, anization 's work impacts and is relevant to each •roup. The o rganizatio n seeks partnerships and collabor.1tions to reinfo rce its diversity focus and to e ncour.1ge that focus in partners. 0 0 0 0 0 -I -I -I -I -I -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 The or •anization has a diversity advisory committee Diversity efforts are measured and monitored 0 0 -I -I -2 -2 Diversity is treated as a ho listic process included in many facets of the or •anization's policies rather than as a separate pro •ram. Diversity is treated as going beyond the presence of persons from various demographic groups to the appreciation of differences as a means to promote new, creative insi •hts. Participation and communication are viewed as essential to diversity/inclusivity. V isions of diversity/inclusion are specified. Example: zero tolerance of hate/harassment. Diversity is recognized within d iverse groups. Example: socio-economic differences exist within specific rac ial groups Diversity is seen as a top-down phenomenon with emphasis placed on board recm iting, training, and retention. Board diversity emphasizes diverse skillsets and backgrounds in addition to diverse demog raphics. The organization looks to diverse constituents and volunteers for potential board members. Diversity is emphasized in the organization's board. Diversity is fully integrated into recm itment, retention, advancement, development, and all other aspects of human resource management. Human resource po licies are balanc<..>d emphasizing rec ruitment, retention, and advancement equally. II �Policy Review- CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Appendix Ill: Interview Questions I. How familiar are you w ith the organization's written policies? a. 2. What steps does the organization take to make policies accessible? In what ways does the organization successfully create a culture and env ironment that embraces diversity? a. Are these successes rooted in the organization's policies? 3. In what ways does the organization fall short of creating a culture and environment that embraces diversity? 4. Who is involved in developing the organization's policies? a. How diverse is this group of policy makers? 5. How included do you feel your voice is in the policy development process? 6. Do you know the organization's policies that are specifically related to d iversity? 7. How well does the organization communicate its d iversi ty policies to staff members? 8. Does the organization facilitate the interaction of diverse sta keholders? H ow? a. 9. Are these methods incorporated in the organization's policies? Do the o rganization's policies a llow it the flexibility to evolve with the needs of a diverse and dynamic community? 12 �Policy Review- CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Appendix IV: Literature Review of Organizational Culture, Organizational Change, and Diversity Diversity and organizational culture play crucial roles in the functioning of an organization. Organizational culture helps define the way an institution accomplishes its goals based on typically unspoken rules and regulations. The degree to which a culture embraces diversity can determine how effective an organization is-not only within its own premises, but a lso beyond its doors and in the community. M ishandling the issue of diversity can potentially stifle institutional growth. Stratification of individuals based on social and economic status happens within the larger society and is equally possible in organizations. This prevents individuals at various levels within an organization from actively contributing, thereby inhibiting potential institutional growth. T he presence of stratification or the lack of true diversity w ithin an organization calls for change. Organizational culture and diversity play important ro les in organizational change, which is often necessary if an institution is to run as efficiently and efficaciously as possible. This literature review attempts to explore all of these aspects of organizational life in g reater depth, to he lp achieve a better understanding of culture, diversity, change, and-ultimately-the inseparability of these crucial factors in organizational functionality. Organizational Culture The culture of an organization defines the way staff and stakeholders interact and the way business is done. Even when the existence of a culture is not clearly acknowledged, it still has a large impact on organizational life (Alvesson, 2002). T he definition of organizational culture is somewhat broad, encompassing the many factors which can influence how it develops in different institutions. Generally, organizational culture consists of a variety of influences deemed relevant and given meaning by the organization, including symbols (words and objects), heroes and heroines (people who characterize the institution's mission and goals), rituals which fulfill a particular role within the organization, and unspoken values (Waters, 2004). Organizational culture is also strongly influenced by the personal cultures of the individuals who make up the organization (Waters, 2004). The factors influencing a culture stretch beyond those already mentioned. Cultures are heavily defined by the society in w hich they exist, as outside norms, values, and even current events can help shape the functioning of an o rganization (Collins, 1998). For this reason, organizational cultures are always changing and adapting in response to different c ircumstances and in differing settings (Waters, 2004). This evolution and flexibility are v ital in ensuring an organization's ability to be effective and accomplish the goals it strives to achie ve. This adaptability can also help promote diversity. Diversity is a very important part of the functioning of an organization, and can lead to great progress and change. Diversity There are many benefits to embracing diversity within an organization. In this context, diversity refers to both racial/ethnic diversity and also diversity of ideas and backgrounds (though certain scenarios may emphasize one over the other). No matter what the situation, diversity opens many doors for an organization and helps it to have a larger and more powerful voice within the community. It is important for all organizations-especially ones with g lobal constituencies-to embrace cultural and subcultural differences (Waters, 2004). In the process of diversifying an organization, it may well be found that there is a common shared value system among its members, and putting these values into practice can help an organization create its own unique multicultural identity and unified organizational culture (Waters, 2004). Diversifying can help an institution find its own niche withi n the community and create an identity by wh ich community members will be sure to remember it. Diverse individuals within an organization bring differing perspectives because of their unique experiences and insights, which p lay a key role in decision-making and the progress of an organization (Wilson, 1994). Groups with diverse members, as well as groups in which a variety of different ideas and opinions are expressed, tend to exhibit more creativity than average (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky & Chiu, 2008), and managers make better decisions and have better ideas when their colleagues are more diverse (Allen & Montgomery, 200 I). Diversity challenges organizations and helps them make necessary and important changes in the way they function. 13 �Policy Review- CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative The impacts of diversity stretch well beyond an organization itself and can impact a w ide variety of people outside the boundaries of an organization. The creative brainstorming, ideas, and contributions w hich arise through d iversity can help lead to improved and more effective policies which address the needs of a diverse population (Wilson, 1994). An organization may find itself w ith more clients or beneficiaries if it diversifies, since diversity of group members can help an organization learn how to appeal to a more diverse populace (Allen & Montgomery, 200 I ). Sometimes the change brought about in an organization due to diversity can lead to certain tensions; there may be resistance to new ideas which have never been shared before. It is important to incorporate acceptance of change into an organization's culture and move beyond an "either/or" or " right versus wrong" approach for looking at ideas. Instead, organizations should view diverse ideas constructively and collectively, wor king together to promote change (Bond, 1999). Organizational Change Organizational change is a necessary process that must take place in order for an organization to continue functioning efficiently with the passing of time. External environmental forces and issues may incite change. T he culture of an institution itself may be in need of restructuring, or its very nature may help encourage the rebuilding of an organization to occur. E ither way, change is a necessary part of the equation, and it is important to understand context in order to understand how change occurs and to know the best way to go about effecting change. Sometimes the underly ing symbols of an organization's culture can be examined and used in ways which promote o rganizational change (Aivesson, 2002). It is important to look at the relationship between organizational culture and performance, especially in terms of how th is relates to performance in individuals (Alvesson , 2002). After all, a c learly defined culture helps bring a group together to work towards common goals, stimulating individuals to feel more motivation to contribute to the organization (Aivesson, 2002). When one feels like s/he has a place within her/his organization, one is more likely to work for improvement and change. Individuals take more pride in their work when they have a voice w ithin their organization, and they will be driven to help the institution grow. An organizational culture that promotes teamwork and also gives its staff room for individuality, will not only enhance performance but also make individuals more willing to adapt to change, as well as create it. The same rules which app ly to understanding group member interactions in the context of culture also apply to understanding leadership. To truly understand how managers w ithin an organization lead and w hy they manage the way they do, it is critical to examine this relationship within a particular cultural context (Alvesson, 2002). Not every leadership style is the same, and it is usually strongly influenced by an organization's culture. Some cultures are more conducive to change than o thers, but the level of change that occurs often lies in the hands of those actually leading an organization. The relationship between culture and organization members' interactions can help explain why an organization changes o r is s low to change and can also help suggest effective ways to help promote change. In striving to achieve organizational change, a common m istake is often made. Rather than attempting to change an organization itself, leaders often attempt to change individuals within the organization instead. This over-simplifies a rather complicated issue, as it is the interrelationships and interactions between group members-in addition to aspects of individual behavior-which need closer examination (Katz & Kahn, 1966). The norms (i.e. the culture) which regulate the interactions within an o rganization should be targeted, since these make the system run as it does (Burke, 2002). Undertaking organizational change may be pointless if members of the institution with the most power are not attempting to change their own methods, as well as the workings of the organization itself. The process of change does not lie in the hands of the employees at the bottom of the power ladder but predominantly in the hands of management. Leadership and Change Organization leaders play a crucial role in organizational change. They often accomplish goals and create change by using an organization's culture to help shape the beliefs and behaviors of their subordinates (Lakomski, 2001 ). In spite of these methods, it is important for managers to be aware that they cannot control organizational c ulture because it is created, to a large extent, by individual employees who bring their own ideas, values, beliefs, and identities to the organization (Collins, 1998). This re-emphasizes how important it is to use the strong points of an organization's culture to push for change. Therefore, the leader's ab ility to understand the culture, the aspects 14 �Policy Review- CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative thereof that can be changed, and the aspects thereof which can be enhanced to encourage change is vital to successfully undertake organizational change. The type of culture a leader encourages and supports is an important determinant of how much change will occur within an organization. Organizations in which avoidance of conflict is encouraged (a unitarist frame of reference) and managers s imply communicate m les and objectives are likely to experience little change (Collins, 1998). Conversely, organizations with management that deals directly with conflict (a pluralist frame of reference) experience cooperative communication between all group members and are more like ly to experience productivity and change (Collins, 1998). A pluralist frame of reference is the most conducive to honest and d irect communication between organization members, giving them an opportunity to give feedback and honest opinions in relation to how an institution is running. This is clearly a useful frame of reference to incorporate into the culture of any organization that is looking to improve and grow. Another very important management practice is the acknowledgement of leadership's personal biases. Managers who recognize their biases towards certain groups of people can help prevent discriminatory behavior aimed at these groups (Wilson, 1994). Leaders hold a great deal of power in shaping an organization's culture. Leaders who conscientiously use their positions within their institutions will be able to shape and help create organizational cultures which are open and conducive to change. Organizational Culture and Organizational Change There are three major aspects of organizational culture w h ich can help lead to organizational change: the ab ility to adapt, members' willingness to adopt new behaviors and mindsets, and goal sharing/team building among group members. Adaptation is a particularly important aspect of organizational culture . A good organization is able to adapt to internal and external threats and opportunities, which not only helps performance but also shows a strong bond and a certain level of trust among organizational members (Aivesson, 2002). An organization that is ab le to adapt through changes is very likely to succeed in the dynamic world. In the context of group interactions throughout all levels of an organization, it is sometimes necessary to make certain small changes within individuals to help the institution be more effective. When this is done, applicable behaviors must be targeted for change. As individuals fo llow through with these behaviors, they will begin to understand the logic behind them and w ill adopt the rationale needed to justify their actions, thus influencing the ir willingness to work for the benefit of an institution (Burke, 2002). This process involves internalization of an institution's goals, wh ich is a much more effective route to organizational change than telling individuals how to think before explaining how they are expected to act (Burke, 2002). Internalization of institutional goals is one of the surest ways to produce organizational change. Change is more likely to occur not only when group members share at least one common goal, but also when they participate in team-building activ ities (Burke, 2002). This solidifies the bond among team members knowing that they are all striving to accomplish the same ends. lnclusivity and Organizational Change There is yet another very critical point to achieving long-lasting organizational change. Including a ll team members (specifically those at the bottom of the power ladder) in the process of organizational change can lead them to be less resistant to change, give them a feel ing of purpose, and help them to be more effective in their work (Burke, 2002). The implications are that giving all team members a share in the institution boosts their morale not only because they feel like they matter to their superiors but also because they feel like the organization is in a sense "theirs". Giving group members ownership of their workplace to the extent that they can participate in ma king important decisions can also be good for the institution because employees can provide a diverse array of ideas which may have never arisen otherwise. This is a win-win situation for both the organization and its employees. The Role of Diversity and Inclusion in Organizational Culture and Change While d iversi ty is a very important aspect of organizational culture, it is o ften mishandled by management. In an attempt to appear nond iscriminatory, management often ignores d iversity, which can do more harm than good. In an attempt to avoid "seeing" race and gender (thus appearing unprejudiced), there is a press for sameness, and this approach in itself is one practiced and imposed by the dom inant culture (Bond, 1999). This can stifle creativity 15 �Policy Review- CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative among organization members, thus harming the progress of an institution (Bond, 1999). Unintentional discrimination could even occur in the attempt to appear "neutral"; prejudiced attitudes need not be present (Bond, 1999). Embracing diversity rather than ignoring it can lead to many benefits for an organization. Including d iverse groups in work activities and problem-solving can give employees a sense of belonging and participation, thus increasing the productivity of an organization, reiterating the aforementioned point on morale (Wilson, 1994). Boosting morale in diverse groups through inclusion can make an organization more productive and more accessible to a diverse population outside of the organization. For all of these reasons, it is very beneficial to embrace, rather than ignore, diversity w ithin an organization. Still, diversity programs rarely produce the intended results (Allen & Montgomery, 200 I). They may urge institutions to give more opportunities to minori ties, but to truly be effective and promote diversity, organizations must make serious changes to aspects of the culture which inhibit the recognition of diversity (Allen & Montgomery, 200 I). The overwhelm ing focus on trying to do what is perceived to be the right thing rather than attempti ng to truly include traditionally underrepresented voices can lead to a breakdown in communication, and therefore, fai lure to achieve the goal of true equality (Bond, 1999). This is good for nei ther the organization nor its members. Stratification based on social and economic class is just one more way in which organizations fall short of true diversity and inclusion. Stratification deters certain groups of people from having the same opportunities as those belonging to a group holding more power socially or economically. Women and racia l m inorities are particularly vulnerable as they are more likely to be placed in entry-level and lower midlevel positions in a workplace (Bond, 1999). Differences of opportunity exist at a ll levels w ithin organizations, especially at the top (Bond, 1999). It is much more competitively difficult to attain a position at the top of an organization, and such positions are usually reserved for those who hold more social and economic power. This kind of stratification may also be more e vident in some countries than others. Some societies (such as the U.S.) which show higher power distance tend to have organizations which practice this same cultural "value" and o perate in a rather authoritarian manner (Collins, 1998). This illustrates how culture outside of an organization can influence organizational culture, but these influences c learly are not always positive ones. Such stratification can place barriers between group members, thus preventing wh ite-collar workers from associating w ith lower prestige workers to avoid the appearance of lowering their status, while those with less prestige avoid commu nication with white-collar workers so they do not appear to make the assumption they have equal status (Katz & Kahn, 1966). All in all, this not only produces tension between group members, but it also greatly reduces the productivity of an organization through failure to promote open communication between all individuals regardless of social and economic status. In the process of fai ling to be inclusive by s ilencing the voices of certain organization members based on their status, an institution is really fai ling at promoting diver sity. The variety of ideas and insights which could be provided by those coming from d iffering backgrounds is a large part of what makes an organization d iverse. Silencing the voices of certain employees hinders the mission of an institution. Fortunately, if organizations make a serious attempt to get at the root of the culture enough to change the detrimenta l aspects, serious progress can be made. Recognizing how stratification works within an organization can lead to change that w ill not only positively impact individuals but the organization as well. In attempting to eliminate the culture of stratification w ithin an organization, it is crucial to examine the vertical dimension ( i.e. the hierarchy based on based on power, privilege, prestige, and rewards), rather than the horizontal dimension, w hich refers to the flow of work in one particular area of an organization (Katz & Kahn, 1966). In doing so, change can occur at all levels of an organization rather than just one. Along with the stratification of employees within an organization, sometimes employees also feel demeaned by the labels given to different organization members. For example, the labels of"management" versus "general employees" can decrease the self-worth of those with lower prestige in an organization, dimin ishing their sense of ownership and willingness to actively participate in the organization (Reynolds & Platow, 2003). There are ways to give employees more power within an organization, thereby helping them feel more motiva ted. All employees, no matter what level of prestige they hold, should be given decision-making powers in order to help them internalize the goals of the institution, thus making them more efficacious and helping the organization grow (Reynolds & Platow, 2003). In addition to this, it is especially important to show employees that their positions are based on achievement rather than ascription; if this is not accomplished, then it is difficult for employees wi th lower 16 �Policy Review- CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative status in an organization to share the same interests as their superiors, and thus, they have trouble internalizing the goals of the organization (Katz & Kahn, 1966). This is understandable from the point of v iew of an employee who feels s/he is at the bottom of the power ladder. Ifs/he feels as if it is impossible to move up this ladder, why would s/he want to bother trying to perform to her/his full capacity? Among other methods, one particular method stands out as being one of the best to provide organizational change: peer groups. Peer groups allow group members to observe interactions and behavior among others of their own status w ithout management's imposition, making it easier to find solutions and achieve real change (Katz & Kahn, 1966). This also provides a much more comfortable environment in which the organization can change. Conclusion All of the research makes it clear that for the most effective organizational change to occur, management must take the reins and create change starting from the top and moving downwards. O ne particular example given by Mats Alvesson (2002) illustrates this point: the founder of IBM was walking through an IBM plant with a few managers, and a subordinate told him to follow safety rules. The managers were about to reprimand her for telling the founder what to do, but the founder told them to let it go, that he should have to follow the rules just like everyone else. This example shows how the mindset and behavior of someone who holds a large amount of power within an organization can influence policies and the way every day interactions are carried out, while empowering those in lower in the hierarchy. Organizational and cultural changes truly start w ith organizations' leaders. The link between organizational culture, diversity, and change is almost inseparable, and often cyclical. The culture of an organization can determine the likelihood of change to occur, how it will occur, and what aspects of the organization wi ll change. Change is necessary in order to keep an organization up to date w ith recent events and to keep it running efficiently. Diversity is integral to organizational culture because it helps foster openness, and creates a vaster pool from which to draw a variety of ideas. Being open to diversity means accepting and acknowledging group members from all backgrounds, including economic and social classes. An organization's culture, especially one that encourages diversity, can contribute to growth and change within an organization. Diversity leads to organizational change by bringing in a variety of backgrounds and thus, a variety of experiences and ideas. It helps shape an organization's culture. In turn, organizational culture and change can also impact diversity. Through the encouragement o f openness, acceptance, and inclusion among members of an institution, organizational change occurs, and d iversity is promoted. When speaking of organizational culture, change, and d iversity, it is difficult to make reference to one of these variables without some combination of intluence(s) from the others. 17 �Policy Review - CMF's Transfom1ing Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative References Allen, R.S., & Montgomery, K.A. (200 I). Applying an organizational development approach to creating diversity. Organizational Dy namics. 30(2), 149- 161. Alvesson, Mats (2002). Understanding organizational culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. Bond, M.A. ( 1999). Gender, race, and class in organizational contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology. 27(3), 327-355. Burke, W.W. (2002). Organization change: The01y and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. Collins, D. ( 1998). Organizational change: Sociological perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The social psychology oforganizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Lakomski, G. (200 I). Organizational change, leadership, and learning: culture as cognitive process. The International Journal ofEducational Management. 15 (2), 68-77. Leung, A.K., Maddux, W.W., Galinsky, A.D., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: the when and how. American Psycholog ist, 63(3), 169-18 1. Reynolds, K. J., & Platow, M. J. (2003). On the social psychology of power and powerlessness: Social power as a symptom of organizational division. InS. A. Haslam D. Van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice. Hove, Great Britain: Psychology Press, Ltd. Waters, L.V. (2004). Cultivate corporate culture and diversity. Nursing Management. 35(1), 36-37, 50. Wilson, P.A. ( 1994). Cultural diversity: an organizational asset. The Public Manager. 23(3), 27-30. 18 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Diversity-and-Inclusion-Policy-Review Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book diversity and inclusion policy review Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book diversity and inclusion policy review. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50757 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/8f1c140bf374d85d2b264c5239357d74.pdf f7a0104c022528213945c3ce9619e10f PDF Text Text CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Serving grontmokers. AdVancing giving. February 15,2009 Memo to: Melanie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board of Trustees From: Carol Goss, Chairperson Governance Committee and Chair Initiative Advisory Committee Vicki Rosenberg, Vice President, Education, Communications External Relations Re: Transforming Michigan Philanthropy Through Diversity & Inclusion (TMP) - Progress from October 2009 through January 2009 TMP is a five-year initiative approved by the CMF Board of Trustees at its Feb. 2008 meeting with a goal to increase the effectiveness and accountability oforganized philanthropy in Michigan. The purpose of this memo is to highlight progress since the last Board Meeting in October. Highlights by Objective 1: Become a model regional association and resource to national field Research & Data Collection - Organizational, Board & Membership Development • Demographic survey of tmstees, staff and youth advisory council (YAC) members in Michigan completed (Attachment A) • Review of CMF internal, board and member policies completed (Attachment B) • Attitudes & Perceptions Survey of CMF employees completed; survey of Trustees being redone in late February 2009 at the direction of the Executive Committee • Identification of organizational and board development consultants and resources National Outreach • Member of national leadership team formed by Diversity in Philanthropy Project (DPP) to design a national strategy to advance diversity and inclusive practice through the national infrastructure for philanthropy and project leader for ?-regional association team • Subject of articles in DPP e-newsletter and ofDPP documentary to premier at COF annual conference • Resource for foundations (most recently St. Paul Foundation and Denver Foundation), organizations (Aspen Institute) and others 2: Increase member awareness, understanding, action Communications & Education • Special area of website with history, advisory committee, board actions, goals, objectives and activities launched Oct. 2008 �Diversity & Inclusion Report February 2009 Page 2 3: Help 20 member foundations achieve their goals forD & I and social equity • Landscape scan (interviews and policy review) underway of goals, objectives, policies and practices of CMF member foundations participating in March 2009 Symposium on Diversity & Inclusion in Philanthropy: The Michigan Experience • 85 CMF members, trustees and staff; national experts and DPP leaders attending March 2-4, 2009 CMF-DPP co-sponsored Symposium on Diversity & Inclusion in Philanthropy: The Michigan Experience to launch peer learning network (Agenda Attachment C) 4: Increase the diversity of foundation staff, trustees, execs. • Research on effective models and outreach to potential partners in higher education, ethnically based professional associations and other groups underway to inform final strategies and tactics Internal Progress • New Director of Diversity and Inclusive Practice created and filled in November by Kimberly Burton • Internal management team formed with three vice presidents (team charter attached) • Social equity added to objectives 2 and 3 • FY09 work plan drafted for Advisory Committee input March 2, 2009 • $35,000 grant received from Skillman Foundation • $1,350,000 in decisions pending at Kresge and Kellogg Foundations � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Diversity-and-Inclusion Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book diversity and inclusion Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book diversity and inclusion. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50758 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d042d7179f88fd31d48957d593d68e55.pdf d00285afc643fd2737f6197acfbe4c6c PDF Text Text SYMPOSIUM CMF ~ Council of Michigan Foundations Diversity &Inclusion 'IV in Philanthropy Serving grantmokers. Advancing giving. THE MICHIGAN EXPERIENCE MARCH 2- 4, 2009 Diversity Philanthropy I DETROIT, MI FINAL DRAFT PROGRAM OUTLINE EVENT GOALS & OBJECTIVES Goals: To explore how increasing diversity and inclusive practice within Michigan's philanthropic sector can increase effectiveness and improve social impact. To identify opportunities for inspiring and supporting action across the sector in Michigan and the nation. Objectives: Discover the existing strengths in Michigan's philanthropic sector for increasing diversity and inclusive practice Build a shared vision for a diverse and inclusive philanthropic sector Commit to individual and/or collective action DAY 1 -MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2009 Objectives: Establish expectations & context Begin building a community of practice TIME 1:30p.m. AGENDA ITEM/ DESCRIPTION Registration Opens 3:00p.m. Symposium Opening: Goals, Objectives, Agenda, Participants & Expectations/ Ground Rules 3:20p.m. Building Our Community- Self Introductions 4:00p.m. Welcome Statements 1. Our Partnership for Diversity & Inclusion Rob Collier, president & CEO, Council ofMichigan Foundations Henry A. J. Ramos, director, Diversity in Philanthropy Project 2. Michigan & Beyond: Promoting Voluntary Action for Diversity & Inclusion Sterling Speirn, president & CEO, W.K. Kellogg Foundation Carol Goss, president & CEO, The Skillman Foundation 4:30p.m. Our Own Stories -Individual & Small Group Work 5:00p.m. Reflections on Individual & Collective Aspirations 5:30p.m. Break 6 :00p.m. Reception & Dinner 7:00p.m. Dinner Presentation: Michigan a s a Context for our Work: Populations, Policies, Challenges and Opportunities Linda Parker, former director, Michigan Department ofCivil Rights (invited) Rob Collier, president & CEO, Council ofMichigan Foundations Breannah Alexander, member, Michigan Community Foundation Youth Project Committee Moderator: Karen Aldridge-Eason, foundation liaison, Office of the Foundation Liaison to the Governor 7:30p.m. Facilitated Table Discussions: The Promise of Statewide Philanthropic Action 8:30p.m. Adjourn for the Day �DAY 2- TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009 Objectives: Develop a shared vision of enhanced inclusivity and effectiveness for Mich igan and its philanthropic sector, building on collective assets Explore new frameworks, rationales and promising practices for building and maintaining d iverse and inclusive foundations TIME 7:00a.m. AGENDA ITEM/ DESCRIPTION Breakfast- Optional Roundtables 8:00a.m. Welcome Back & Today's Agenda 8:10a.m. Reflections 8:30a.m. Mapping Our Collective Strengths An exploration of t he group's collective strengths, experiences, resources and tools 9:30a.m. Understanding our Starting Point for Diversity in the Philanthropic Sector 1. Findings: Michigan Foundation Staff & Trustee Demographics Evaluation Team: David Bleckley, research coordinator, and Mary McDonald, former director, Community Research Institute at The Johnson Center for Philanthropy, Grand Valley State University 2. The National Picture Larry McGill, senior vice president for research, Foundation Center 10:15 a .m. Break 10:45a.m. Toward a Common Vision: Diversity & Inclusive Practice for Greater Community Impact A world cafe dialogue to explore a comm on vision for Michigan's philanthropic sector 12:00 p.m. Lunch 1:00p.m. Inside Foundations: Leadership, Culture & Practice 1. Leading Organizational Change: The Promise and Challenge of Diversity & Inclusion in Foundations Dr. Lynn Wooten, clinical associate professor, Ross School of Business, University of Michigan Dr. Mary Ellen Capek, consulranr, Diversity In Philanthropy Project 2. 2:30p.m. Reflection & Dialogue: Explore t he tipping points and motivators that build the will to focus on diversity, the opportunities to catalyze change, and t he organizational roadblocks to overcome. What's Happening in Michigan Foundations? 1. A Policy Review Evaluation Team: David Bleckley, research coordinator, and Mary McDonald, former director, Community Research Institute at The Johnson Center for Philanthropy, Grand Valley State University 2. Themes and Stories from the Field Jessica Bearman, consultant, Diversity in Philanthropy Project 3:30p.m. Breakout Discussions on Strategies & Practices Participants will participate in breakout sessions, led b y national resource people, focusing on a deeper investigation of specific aspects of diversity and inclusive p ractice in foundations, including: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Staff Diversity & Cultural Competency Organizational Policy & Practice (HR, Comm unications, etc.) Leadership for Organizational Change - the role ofthe b oard and executive leadership Stakeh older Engagement & Grantmaking Con necting Effectiveness and Diversity Other (TBD) 5:30p.m. Synthesis & Reflection for the Day 5:45p.m. Break 6:30p.m. Dinner & Discussion 8:00p.m. Adjourn for the Day �DAy 3 - WEDNESDAyI MARCH 4, 2009 Objectives: Explore opportunities/ challenges of organizational change from individual roles Identify opportunities in role-alike (trustees, CEOs, Program staff, etc.) groups Develop preliminary commitments to action (individual, foundation, group and CMF) TIME 7:15a.m. AGENDA ITEM/ DESCRIPTION Breakfast- Optional Roundtables 8:15a.m. Welcome Back: Thoughts & Reflections from Previous Day 8:45a.m. Role-Alike Group Dialogue/ Report Out Functional groups to examine specific opportunities, strategies, and needs (trustees; CEOs, program staff, administrative staff, etc). 10:15 a .m. Break 10:30a.m. What Now? Foundation Teams Commit to Next Steps/Report Out Foundation teams reflect on the last day and a half and articulate commitments and needs going forward. 11:15a.m. Discussion: What do we want to make happen collectively? What is CMF's role in making that happen? 12:00p.m. Final Reflections & Closing Comments 12:30 p.m. Adjourn (Optional Lunch) �SYMPOSIUM CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. ~ Diversity & Inclusion 'II' in Philanthropy THE MICHIGAN EXPERIENCE MARCH 2 - 4 , 2009 Diversity Philanthropy I DETROIT, M I PARTICIPANT ROSTER AS OF 2.13.09 Ms. Karen Aldridge-Eason Foundation liaison Office of Foundation liai son PO Box 30013 111 South Capitol Avenue Lansing Ml48909-7513 517-241-1689 aldridgeeasonk@michigan.gov Ms. Ronna Alexander Alexander Ink PO Box 1073 Douglas Ml 49406-1073 269-857-7633 pink@accn.o rg Ms. Breannah Alexander YAC Member Saginaw Community Foundation 52406 Pheasant Run Dr Saginaw Ml 48638-6398 breannahalexander@hotmail.com Ms. Tonya Allen Vice President of Program The Skillman Foundation 100 Talon Centre Dr Ste 100 Detroit Ml 48207-4266 313-393-1185 tallen@skillman.org Mr. Ron Ancrum President Associated Grant Makers 55 Court St Ste 520 Boston MA 02108-2104 617-426-2606 rancrum@agmconnect.org Ms. Jessica Bearman Consultant 519 East B Street Moscow ID 83843 208-882-1678 jessica.bearman@gmail.com Mr. David Blackley Research Coordinator Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy 401 Fulton St W C/0 Grand Valley State University Grand Rapids Ml 49504-6431 616-331-6692 blecklda@gvsu.edu Ms. Jacquelynne Borden-Conyers Communications Manager W.K. Kellogg Foundation 1 Michigan Ave E Battle Creek Ml49017-4005 269-969-2313 ibconyers@wkkf.org Ms. Crystal Coleman Human Resources Director The Kresge Foundation 3215 W Big Beaver Rd Troy Ml 48084-2818 248-643-9630 cycoleman@kresge.org Ms. Renee Branch Director Diversity & Inclusive Practices Council on Foundations 2121 Crystal Dr Ste 700 Arlington VA 22202-3706 703-879-0625 branr@cof.org Ms. Terreance Coleman Program Associate Community Foundations Council of Michigan Foundations 100 Talon Centre Dr Ste 150 Detroit Ml 48207-4465 313-566-2444 tcoleman@michiganfoundations.org Ms. Kimberly Burton Vice President of Corporate Services Council of Michigan Foundations 100 Talon Centre Dr Ste 150 Detroit Ml 48207-4266 313-566-2444 kburton@michiganfoundations.org Mr. Robert Collier President & CEO Counci l of Michigan Foundations 1 S Harbor Dr Ste 3 Grand Haven Ml49417-1385 616-842-7080 rcollier@michiganfoundations.org Ms Mary Ellen Capek Philanthropy and Nonprofit Research Capek & Associates 280 Dixon Rd Corrales NM 87048-7722 505-890-6466 mecapek@me.com Mr. Phil D'Anieri Program Director Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation 301 N Main St Ste 300 Ann Arbor Ml48104-1133 734-663-0401 pdanieri@aaacf.org Ms. Caroline Chambers President Comerica Charitable Foundation PO Box75000 Detroit Ml 48275-0001 313·222-3571 caroline chambers@comerica.com Mr. Paul Doyle Chair Grand Rapids Community Foundation 185 Oakes St SW Grand Rapids Ml 49503 616-454·1751 doylpt@sbcglobal.net Ms. Melonie Colaianne President MASCO Corporation Foundation 21 001 Van Born Rd Taylor Ml48180-1340 313-792-6378 melonie colaianne@mascohg.com Mr. Garland Doyle Founder Doyle Fund - Nonprofit Workforce Capacity Building 247 Samburu St Pontiac Ml48341-1063 248-346-3917 gdoyle@doylephilanthropy.com Ms. Andrea Cole Executive Director & CEO Ethel and James Flinn Foundation 333 W Fort St Ste 1950 Detroit Ml 48226-3154 313·309-3437 acole@flinnfoundation.org Participant Roster - 1 Ms. Cheryl Elliott President and CEO Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation 301 N Main St Ste 300 Ann Arbor Ml48104-1133 734-663-0401 info@aaacf.org �SYMPOSIUM CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. ~ Diversity & Inclusion 'II' in Philanthropy THE MICHIGAN EXPERIENCE MARCH 2 - 4 , 2009 Diversity Philanthropy I DETROIT, M I PARTICIPANT ROSTER AS OF 2_13.09 Ms. Dolores Ennis Trustee Ruth Mott Foundation 111 E Court St Suite 3C Flint Ml 48502-1649 810-233-0170 Ms. Deborah Higgins Program Associate The John E. Fetzer Institute 9292 West KL Avenue Kalamazoo Ml49009-5316 269-375-2000 dhiggins@fetzer.org Mr. Sylvester Jones Jr. Program Officer Ruth Mott Foundation 111 E Court St Suite 3C Flint Ml 48502-1649 81 0-233·0170 sjones@rmfdn.org Mr. Robert Espinoza Director of Research Funders for Lesbian & Gay Issues 116 E 16th St FIG New York NY 10003-2163 212-475-2930 robert@lgbtfunders.org Ms. Kathi Horton President Community Foundation of Greater Flint 500 S Saginaw St Ste 200 Flint Ml 48502-1804 810-767-8270 Mr. Tom Kam Deputy Director of Programs Arcus Foundation 402 E Michigan Ave Kalamazoo Ml 49007-3888 269-373-4373 tom@arcusfoundation.org Ms. DaDe Esque President & CEO Nokomis Foundation 161 Ottawa Ave NW Ste 305C Waters Building Grand Rapids Ml49503-2710 616-451-0267 desgue@nokomisfoundation.org Ms. Susan Howbert Director Family Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations 100 Talon Centre Dr Ste 150 Detroit Ml 48207-4465 313-566-2444 showbert@aol.com Ms. Christee Khan Human Resources Manager The John E. Fetzer Institute 9292 West KL Avenue Kalamazoo Ml 49009-5316 269-375·2000 ckhan@fetzer.org Ms. Jeri Fischer Director Membership & Special Projects Council of Michigan Foundations 1 S Harbor Dr Ste 3 Grand Haven Ml 49417-1385 616-842-7080 jfi scher@michiganfoundations.org Ms. Sonya Hughes VP of Diversity Initiatives and Programs Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce 111 Pearl St NW Grand Rapids Ml 49503-2804 616-771-0321 hughess@grandrapids.org Mr. William King President Minnesota Council on Foundations 100 Portland Ave Ste 225 Minneapolis MN 55401-2575 612-335·3557 bking@mcf.org Mr. Andrew Gatewood Program Officer The Kresge Foundation 3215 W B ig Beaver Rd Troy Ml 48084-2818 248-643-9630 argatewood@kresge.o rg Ms. Wendy Jackson Program Officer The Kresge Foundation 3215 W Big Beaver Rd Troy Ml 48084-2818 248·643-9630 wljackson@kresge.org Mr. Mike Goorhouse Program Associate Community Foundations Council of Michigan Foundations 14259 Spruce Hollow Dr. Holland Ml 49424 616-842-7080 mgoorhouse@michiganfoundations.org Ms. Jan Jaffe Project Leader Grant Craft Ford Foundation 320 E 43rd St New York NY 10017-4801 212-573-5287 j.jaffe@fordfound .org Ms. Carol Goss President and CEO The Skillman Foundation 100 Talon Centre Dr Ste 100 Detroit Ml48207-4266 313-393-1185 mailbox@skillman.org Mr. Johnny Jenkins Jr. Michigan Program Officer Arcus Foundation 402 E Michigan Ave Kalamazoo Ml49007-3888 269·373-4373 johnny@arcusfoundation.org Participant Roster - 2 Mr. Edmund Lewis Program Associate Max M. and Marjorie S. Fisher Foundation 2 Towne Square Ste 920 Southfield Ml 48076 Ms. Valerie Lies President and CEO Donors Forum 208 S La Salle St Ste 1540 Chicago IL 60604-1000 312-578-0090 vlies@donorsforum.org Mr. David Lindberg VP Finance and Administration Council of Michigan Foundations 1 S Harbor Dr Ste 3 Grand Haven Ml49417-1385 616-842·7080 dlindberg@michiganfoundations.org �SYMPOSIUM CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. ~ Diversity & Inclusion 'II' in Philanthropy THE MICHIGAN EXPERIENCE MARCH 2 - 4 , 2009 Diversity Philanthropy I DETROIT, M I PARTICIPANT ROSTER AS OF 2_13.09 Ms. Dana Linnane Public Policy Fellow Council of Michigan Foundations 1 S Harbor Dr Ste 3 Grand Haven Ml49417-1385 616-842-7080 dllnnane@michiganfoundations.org ltm@fdncenter.org Ms. Donnell Mersereau Director Community Foundations Council of Michigan Foundations 1 S Harbor Dr Ste 3 Grand Haven Ml49417-1385 616·842-7080 dmersereau@michiganfoundatlons.or Ms. Monica Lonk Human Resource Manager Battle Creek Community Foundation 34 Jackson St W One Riverwalk Ctr Battle Creek Ml49017-3505 269-962-2181 monical@bccfoundation.org 9 Mrs. Mary Maurer Secretary St. Ignace Area Community Foundation 160 Church St PO Box 315 Saint Ignace Ml 49781-1602 906-847-3701 info@st.ignace.com Mr. Wesley Maurer Jr. Trustee Mackinac Island Community Foundation 359 Reagon St PO Box277 Saint Ignace Ml 49781-1134 906-643-9150 wes@stignacenews.com Ms. Mary McDonald Ph.D. Assistant Professor University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego CA 92110-2492 619-260-2747 marymc@sandieqo.edu Mr. Jason McGill Director of Member Services New York Regional Association of Grantmakers 79 Fifth Ave 4th Floor New York NY 10003-3034 212-714-0699 imcgill@nyrag.org Mr. Lawrence McGill Senior VP for Research Foundation Center 79 5th Ave New York NY 10003-3034 212-807-3634 Mr. Lawrence Moon Chairperson Community Foundation of Greater Flint 906 W Flint Park Blvd Lawrence E Moon Funeral Home Flint Ml 48505-3154 810-789-6666 lemoonfh@bignet.net Ms. Dawn Moore-Dixon Asst Director Third Millennium Init. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University 719 Indiana Ave Ste 370 Indianapolis IN 46202-3176 317-278-8991 dawnmoor@iupui.edu Ms. Sandra Murphy Director of Donor Services Community Foundation of Greater Flint 500 S Saginaw St Ste 200 Flint Ml 48502-1804 810·767-3653 smurphy@cfgf.org Mr. Patrick Naswell VP of Community Impact Community Foundation of Greater Flint 500 S Saginaw St Ste 200 Flint Ml 48502-1804 810-767-3504 pnaswell@cfgf.org Mr. Robert Neumann Photographer Big Event Studios 312 Ellsworth Ave Grand Rapids Ml 49503 616·454-1001 rneumann@bigeventstudios.com Ms. Mariam Noland President Participant Roster - 3 Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan 333 W Fort St Suite 2010 Detroit Ml 48226-3134 313-961·6675 cfsem@cfsem.org Ms. Rebecca Noricks Communications Manager Council of Michigan Foundations 1 S Harbor Dr Ste 3 Grand Haven Ml 49417-1385 616-842·7080 rnoricks@michiganfoundations.org Ms. Danielle Olekszyk Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer The Skillman Foundation 100 Talon Centre Dr Ste 100 Detroit Ml 48207-4266 313-393·1185 dolekszyk@skillman.org Ms. Carol Paine-McGovern President Paine Family Foundation 2445 Hall Street SE Grand Rapids Ml 49506-3504 616-285-0409 painemcgov@aol.com Ms Anna Pond Consultant Anna Pond Consulting 95 Saint Marks Ave Brooklyn NY 11217-2410 718-789-0187 annapond@aol.com Mr. Henry Ramos Principal Mauer Kunst Consulting 9750 Random Canyon Way Creston CA 93432-9604 805-438-4 737 mauerkunst@yahoo.com Ms. Marcia Rapp Vice President of Programs Grand Rapids Community Foundation 185 Oakes St SW Grand Rapids Ml 49503 616-454-1751 mrapp@grfoundation.org Ms. Kimberly Roberson Program Officer Charles Stewart Mott Foundation 503 S Saginaw St Ste 1200 �SYMPOSIUM CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. ~ Diversity & Inclusion 'II' in Philanthropy THE MICHIGAN EXPERIENCE MARCH 2 - 4 , 2009 Diversity Philanthropy I DETROIT, M I PARTICIPANT ROSTER AS OF 2_13.09 Mott Foundation Building Flint Ml 48502-1807 810-238-5651 kroberson@mott.org Participant Roster - 4 �SYMPOSIUM CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. ~ Diversity & Inclusion 'II' in Philanthropy THE MICHIGAN EXPERIENCE MARCH 2 - 4 , 2009 Diversity Philanthropy I DETROIT, M I PARTICIPANT ROSTER AS OF 2_13.09 Ms. Vicki Rosenberg VP Education, Comm. & External Relations Council of Michigan Foundations 1 S Harbor Dr Ste 3 Grand Haven Ml49417-1385 616-842-7080 vrosenberg@michiganfoundations.org Mr. Chris Smith Program Officer Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan 333 W Fort St Suite 2010 Detroit Ml48226-3134 313-961·6675 csmith@cfsem.org Mr. Randall Ross Senior Program Officer Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan 333 W Fort St Suite 2010 Detroit Ml48226-3134 313-961-6675 rross@cfsem .org Mr. Sterling Speirn President and CEO W.K. Kellogg Foundation 1 Michigan Ave E Battle Creek Ml 49017-4005 269-968-1611 sterling.speirn@wkkf.org Ms. Beverly Spriggs Program Associate Council of Michigan Foundations 100 Talon Centre Dr Ste 150 Detroit Ml 48207-4465 313-566·2444 bspriggs@michiganfoundations.o rg Ms. Gloria Royal Director of Communications Arcus Foundation 402 E Michigan Ave Kalamazoo Ml49007-3888 269-373-4373 gl oria@arcusfoundation.org Mr. Douglas Stewart Executive Director Max M. and Marjorie S. Fisher Foundation 2 Towne Square Ste 920 Southfield Ml 48076 248-415-1432 Ms. Catherine Ryan Producer luna Productions 1210 Masonic Ave Apt 3 Berkeley CA 94706-2354 510-526-9500 catherine@lunaproductions.com Ms. Diana Sieger President Grand Rapids Community Foundation 185 Oakes St SW Grand Rapids Ml 49503 616-454-1751 grfoundation@grfoundation.org Ms. Kathy Szenda Wilson leadership Officer Battle Creek Community Foundation 34 Jackson St W One Riverwalk Ctr Battle Creek Ml 49017-3505 269-962·2181 kathy@bccfoundation.org Mr. lan Slattery Sound Recordist luna Productions 121 0 Masonic Ave Apt 3 Berkeley CA 94706-2354 510-526-9500 ian@lunaproductions.com Ms. Lori Villa rosa Executive Director Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity 1700 N St NW Washington DC 20036-2907 202-375-7772 villarosa@racialeguit v.org Mr. l arry Smith Director Millennium Initiative The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University 719 Indiana Ave Ste 370 Indianapolis IN 46202-3176 317-278-8979 larrsmit@iupui.edu Ms. Vernetta Walker Director of Consulting BoardSource 1828 l Street NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20036-5114 202-204-7966 vwalker@boardsource.org Participant Roster - 5 �SYMPOSIUM CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. ~ Diversity & Inclusion 'II' in Philanthropy THE MICHIGAN EXPERIENCE MARCH 2 - 4 , 2009 Diversity Philanthropy I DETROIT, M I PARTICIPANT ROSTER AS OF 2.13.09 Dr. Alice Warner-Mehlhorn Program Director in Policy W.K. Kellogg Foundation 1 Michigan Ave E Battle Creek Ml49017-4005 269-969-2229 alice.warner@w kkf.org Mr. Gary Weimberg Director Luna Productions 121 0 Masonic Ave Apt 3 Berkeley CA 94706-2354 510-526-9500 gary@lunaproductions.com Ms. Adrienne Wells Education Initiative Project Assistant Ohio Grantmakers Forum 37 W Broad St Suite 800 Columbus OH 43215-4198 614-224-1344 awell s@ohioqrantmakers.org Mr. Steven Wilson Executive Director Ruth Mott Foundation 111 E Court St Suite 3C Flint Ml48502-1649 810-233-0170 swilson@rmfdn.org Ms. Lynn Wooten Clinical Associate Professor University of Michigan 701 Tappan Ave Ann Arbor Ml48109-1234 lpwooten@umlch.edu Participant Roster - 6 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Diversity-in-Philanthropy Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book diversity in philanthropy Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book diversity in philanthropy. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50759 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6a98297010e33a412f8bda07c218909f.pdf 4c64b9835683dc46fad4e0dd4f48ee7c PDF Text Text CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Date: February 13, 2009 Memo to: Melonie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board ofTrustees From: Phil Peters, Chair, CMF Audit Committee Dave L indberg, Vice President Finance RE: CMF 12-31-08 Internal Financial Statements Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. RESOLVED that the CMF Board of Trustees approve the CMF and Supporting Organizations Internal Financial Statements for December 31, 2008 as recommended by the CMF Audit Committee. On February 9, 2009, the CMF Audit Committee met and approved the attached financial report. Core Operations Note 1: Membership The proj ected amount includes the following anticipated payments. Steelcase Foundation Conway Family Foundation The Tiscomia Foundation Harry A. & Margaret D. Towsley Foundation $9,600 500 1,100 7,200 Note 2: Additional Member Contributions The bulk of this category is the $150,000 grant from Kellogg. See attached detailed report for other contributions. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Financials 12-31-0S.doc �Note 3: Other Grants 2008-09 is the final year of a three year $25,000 per year grant from The Skillman Foundation to support the occupancy costs for the Detroit office. It appears Skillman will be providing a grant for at least one more year to support this office. Includes the following· Skillman Detroit Office Support Yr 3 (Final) Transfer Fatherhood meeting revenue to special grant dollars $25,000 (2,308) Note 4: Conference & Meetings Revenue & Expenses As of 12-31-08 the annual conference has contributed $140,000 to staff time to produce the conference vs. a budget of $123,000, which was the result of attendance being greater than anticipated. Total staff time to produce the conference is estimated at $225,000. The additional contribution is due to attendance exceeding expectations. Note 5: Investment Income While the rate of return on the money market account has dropped below 2% vs. 5% for last year, overall income has remained on budget due to the $1.3 million in ECIC money that was held through 8-15-08. With the transfer of the ECIC money it appears we may fall short of our investment earnings goal by $43,000 by year-end. $30,000 of the year to date amount is the result of the income transferred from the Core Operations Endowment Fund. Note 6: Wages The projected variance from budget is due to the following items. Director of Corporate Services - position not filled till Nov 2008 Additional time to Philanthropy 3D project Additional time on Diversity project ECIC Project ending August of 2008 S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Financials 12-31 -0S.doc $36,000 3,000 16,000 (5,800) �Note 7: Equipment & Furniture $ 1,500 of this amount is for carpet purchased for the board room. Due to the projected surplus and the fact that the President' s car lease is expiring, a replacement car (Saturn Hybrid) was purchased in late January. Due to the current auto industry crisis leasing has increased significantly so the monthly payments over a three year lease equal the purchase price of the car. Since depreciation is not a cash expense and not booked until year-end, the savings on the monthly internal financial statements is the lease cost of approx imately $700 plus any gas savings. Note 8: Communications/Publications $ 12,000 of the projected variance is due to the Board Chair publication that was funded by a grant from the C.S. Mott Foundation and distributed to members at no charge. The remaining variance is due to a couple of publications that have been put on hold. Note 9: Professional Services Line Item Newsclip Service Public Affairs Legal - Clark Hill Audit Fees Mise - Matrix Budget 2008-09 Actual 4/1/2008 12/31/2008 4,500 18,000 11,000 4,500 2,000 3,939 13,500 6,925 4,594 2,440 40,000 31,398 Projected 1/1/2009 3/31/2009 2008-09 4,500 4,000 8,500 3,939 18,000 10,925 4,594 2,440 39,898 S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Financials 12-31-0S.doc �William Allen Fund This fund supports staff travel and complimentary Foundation Directories for the annual legislative trip to Washington D.C. Because of the increase in fees charged by COF for the Hill visits ($95) in March 2009, CMF is passing along the registrations fees to the members. Russell G. Mawby Fund The following current year budgeted items have not been committed to at this point: GVSU Family Chair Establishing & Admin Scholarship Programs Corporate Giving Program State of Michigan Giving Total $18,000 5,400 5,400 9,700 $38,500 The following expenditures have been paid to date: Association Dues & Sponsorships MNA Sponsorship Super Conference Michigan Women' s Foundation - Women of Achievement Dinner National Center for Family Philanthropy Online service Association ofFundraising Professionals- National Philanthropy Day sponsorship MNA Nonprofit Day sponsorship Governor's Service Award Video ofCMF awardees $1,000 500 3,600 500 500 2,500 Professional Services MNA 2008 Economic Impact Study 50% Due Legal work L3C Legal Work Establishing a Charitable Foundation $6,328 4,262 2,599 Travel Dinner Mawby Award winner Facing Racism travel expenses $536 1,059 S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Financials 12-31-0S.doc �Ruth & Russ Mawby Fund for Kids This fund supports the YAC summer intern and the Summer Youth Conference for youth grantmakers. The final b illing from U ofM for the June 2008 Summer Youth Conference was finally received and paid in December. Dorothy Johnson Educational Fund Other Grant Due to the drop in the market value of this endowment fund and the fact that the attendance at the annual conference exceeded expectations only $39,000 of this fund was used to support the CMF Annual Conference. Community Foundation Endowment Fund At this tim e it appears total expenses should remain within budget for the current fiscal year. CFYP Endowment Fund This fund supports Y AC Program Associate position. $ 1,500 of the Training & Registration line item covered the registration fees for the youth that attended the CMF Annual Conference. Riecker Leadership Fund T he fund supports 65% the Public Policy Fellow position. William Richardson Endowment Fund 35% of the Public Policy Fellow's wages are being charged to this endowment fund. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Financials 12-31-0S.doc �Community Foundation Technology Endowment Fund This fund primarily covers the support provided to FIMS sites by Bill Nethercut, software consultant. Carl Reitz Endowment Fund This fund supports investment educational events for foundation staff and trustees at the CMF Annual Conference. CMF Core Services Endowment Fund $30,000 was transferred from this fund to CMF Core Services. This represents the 5% spendable income available from this fund on an annual basis. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Financials 12-31 -0S.doc �that the Kresge Foundation had invited a proposal for $250,000. There was agreement to proceed with the recommendation and inform the whole Board about this development. Upon motion duly made, supported, and unanimously carried, it was RESOLVED that CMF enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth to contract with McKinsey & Co. for up to $1 million for the Michigan' s Advanced Energy Economy Initiative for the period February 16, 2009 to May 15, 2009 with the following conditions: • at least three members of CMF participate in this collaborative with grants in excess of $500,000, • a Steering Committee with representatives from Michigan's univer sities, nonprofits, business and foundations meets at least twice a month during this period, • the State is successful in securing Federal stimulus funds to implement the goals of the Initiative, and • low income populations are involved as beneficiaries of programs of the Initiative such as job creation Attitudes and Perceptions Survey of CMF Trustees and Staff Mr. Collier reviewed the purpose of the Attitudes and Perceptions Survey as a new baseline tool tor the D iversity and Inclusion Initiative developed by the Community Research Institute at Grand Valley State University. He indicated that because of recent emails, it was apparent a number of Trustees have completed the Survey from the perspective of their Foundation and not as CMF Trustees. There was agreement that the Survey should be resent to all Trustees before the February 24 Board Meeting with a request that they complete it again from the perspective of a CMF Trustee. President's Performance Review Chairperson Colaianne reviewed the process used last year for evaluating the President. There was consensus by the Committee to continue this process. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\Financials 12-31-0S.doc �Council of Michigan Foundations & Supporting Organizations Consolidated Balance Sheet December 31, 2008 II CMF Core & Spec ial Projects ASSETS Cash & Equivalents Investments Grants Receivable Due From Other Funds Property, Plant & Equipment - Net Other Assets Total Assets LIABILITIES Accounts Payable Grants Liabilities Deferred/Other Liabilities Total Liabilities NET ASSETS (FUND BALANCE) Unrestricted & Temp Restrict. Endowment Funds KYIP Fund Total Net Assets Total Liabilities & Net Assets S :\Finance\Finandat Statements\08-09\CMF FS 12-31-08 $5,653,295 3,637,401 (3,334, 731) 397,783 32,487 $6,386,235 $24,700 0 84,346 109,046 Endowment Funds $193,292 12,787,968 (145,515) $12,835,745 Supporting Organizations Michigan AIDS MCFV LTG Fund $5,274 ,811 $16,377 $2,223,269 3,397,680 1,987 179,397 $8,674,478 $2,419,043 $360,887 390,795 (96,832) 6,972 8,637 $670,458 $ 0 6,277,189 20,000 64,000 84,000 0 0 3,403,004 179,738 2,239,305 586,458 Total $11,498,662 15,011,237 4,028,196 (1) 406,742 41,124 $30,985,959 $24,700 20,000 148,346 193,046 6 ,277,189 12,835,745 5,271 ,474 8,674,478 2,419,043 586,458 10,446,389 15,075,050 5,271,474 30,792,913 $6,386,235 $12,835,745 $8,674,478 $2,419,043 $670,458 $30,985,959 12,835,745 �Counc il of Mic higan Foundatio ns & Supporting Organizations Co ns olidat ed Statem ent of Activities and Changes in Net Asset s 4-1-08 to 12-31-08 II Council of Michigan Foundations Supporting Organizations Michigan A IDS MCFV LTG Fun d CMF Core Services Revenues Spendable Income Membership Investment Additiona l Member Contributions Other Grants Conference Income Publications Other Income Investment Income Total Revenues Program/Admi n Expenses Wages & Benefits Occupancy Telephone Equipment Lease & Maintenance Postage Supplies Insurance Equipment & Furniture Depreciation Technology Dues & Sponsorship Books & Subscriptions Communications!Publications Professional Services Travel Training & Seminars Conference & Meeting (GainVLoss sale of fixed assets Overhead Allocation to Spec Proj Total Program!Admin Special Endowment Funds Projects $0 $0 $722,200 982,1 09 167,060 22,692 654,421 14,698 83,694 $722,200 982, 109 167,060 1,482,795 600 200 1,924,875 CMF Total 10 1,483,405 100 23,525 1,170 22,145 !3,795,667! !3.026,527! 250,800 ~24,201 3 75,001 1,219,901 66,640 14,096 1,930 10 2,875 267,596 733 1,930 6,310 16,281 3,954 24 1 1,976 0 119 510 11 ,702 1,250 11 ,610 45,819 42,360 978 41,025 51 ,707 2,033 s 381,753 9,903 32,777 29,125 $722,200 678,546 15,868 22,345 3,711 ,963 717,247 51,066 14,574 235,058 1,000 3,460 1.505,587 $25,1 56 !682,449! 1657,279! 5,756 3,026 1,625 596 9 ,707 31 ,397 478,305 35,928 982,109 167,060 676,709 2,458,252 3,811 678,546 15,882 22,345 4,266,400 680,521 57,795 191,899 29,409 1,520,431 96,049 18,204 4,800 3,936 172 12 (750) 1,388 5,147 1,388 2,033 41,022 s 14 6,670 18,767 3,g54 1,226 2,870 1,631 25,794 1,388 1,690 3,723 3,317 600 51 ,588 61,260 3,622 3,622 51,707 550,727 186,160 6,428 122,575 865,890 313 3,488 78 3,489 25,957 1,008 11,679 609 ,022 46,409 423,753 3 ,480,965 3,886,603 3,886,603 22,125 26,165 5,676 2,890 5 ,967 5,530 56,000 84,218 14,096 593,776 818,127 382,705 2 ,719,341 291 ,462 115,507 71 ,600 71 ,600 187,107 187,107 2,525,891 905,000 268,605 2,525,891 905,000 268,605 0 !975! 8,313 48,958 8,118 1,226 18,300 531,809 ~ .518,509 Combined Total 200 113,976 15,304 0 (975 975 GRANTS Challenge Grants Mini· Gra nl s Computer Grants Other Grants Total Grants Excess Revenues Over Expenditures Beginning Net Assets Transfer from MCFV Cha nge in Net Assets Ending Net Assets s vc.........,.,_..,. s,_ .,.'".o...::~o~F FS 11·)1-ot 115,507 406,366 549,771 2,810,920 2,510,133 (3,480,832) (2,524,696) (2,442 ,352) (1 ,608,688) (11,838) (6,587,572) 17,681 ,330 23 ,002,382 11 ,1 16,830 4,027,731 598,295 38,745,238 !4,203,032! $ 13,478,298 (3,246,896 19,755,487 !2,442,352! p ,608,688! $8,674,478 $2,419,043 p1,838! $586,458 31,435,466 0 406,366 549,77 1 $3,217,285 $3,059,904 (7,309,772 �Council of Michigan Foundations Core Services Internal Statement of Activities 4-1-08 to 12-31-08 12 Month Budget 2008-09 Revenues Membership Investment Additional Member Contributions Other Grants Conference & Meetings Publications Other Income Investment Earnings Total Revenues Program/Admin Expenses Wages & Benefits Occupancy Telephone Equipment Lease & Maintenance Postage Supplies Insurance Equipment & Furniture Depreciation Technology Dues & Sponsorship Books & Subscriptions Communications/Publications Professional Services Travel Training & Seminars Conference & Meetings (Gain)/Loss Sale of Fixed Assets Overhead Allocation to Spec Projects Total Program/Admin 9 Month Budget 12/31/2008 $ 1,006,000 166,000 25,000 598,000 15,000 2,000 138,000 1,950,000 1,014 ,000 68,000 13,000 3,000 20,000 30,000 6,000 $ 988,000 166,000 25,000 553,000 11,300 2,000 11 1 ,000 1,856,300 760,400 51,000 9,600 2,200 14,900 22,500 6,000 9 Month Actual 12/31/2008 $ 982,109 167,060 22,692 654,421 14,698 200 83,694 1,924,875 Note 1 Note 2 Note 3 Note 4 717,247 51 ,066 9,903 1,930 6,310 16,281 3,954 2,033 Note 6 74,000 34,500 5,000 88,000 40,000 63,000 9,000 484,000 55,500 32,900 3,700 66,000 31,200 47,300 6,700 449,400 32,777 29,125 3,026 41 ,022 31 ,397 35,928 5,676 531 ,809 (1 ,500) 1,950,000 (1,200) 1 ,558, 100 (975) 1,518,509 Grants Challenge Grants Mini-Grants Computer Grants Other Grants Total Grants 0 0 0 Excess Revenues Over Expenditures 0 298,200 406,366 1,224,597 0 1,224,597 298,200 1,224,597 406,366 1,224,597 1,522,797 $1 ,630,963 Beginning Net Assets Excess Rev over Exp. Transfer to Core Endowment Ending Net Assets S:\Finance\Financial Statements\08·09\CMF FS 12-31·08 Projected 2008-09 Note 5 Note 7 Note 8 Note 9 Note 4 $994,000 167,000 23,000 650,000 18,000 1,000 95,000 1,948,000 970,000 70,000 13,000 2,500 14,000 22,000 4,000 30,000 67,000 33,000 5,000 66,000 40,000 63,000 9,000 536,000 (1 ,300) 1,943,200 4,800 �CMF Endowment Fu nds Consolidated Statement of Act ivities and Cha nges in Net Assets 4-1-08 to 12-31-08 Endowment Funds Revenues Spendable Income Membership Investment Additional Member Contributions Other Grants Conference Income Publications Other Income Investment Income Total Revenues Russell G. M aw by Johns on Allen Maw by Educational Fund Fund Fund For Kids 8,600 $ 73.000 $ 4 2,000 Fund $ 49,000 Community Foundation E ndowment MCFYP Rie cker hchnology Richardson Public Inves t. Endowment Fund Fund Policy Education ' ' 358,000 Comm Fdn 57.000 ' 56,000 ' 24.000 ' 22,000 Re itz ' 2.600 12 Month ' 30,000 100 23,600 (200) 125 1,170 22,145 (45,897) (391 ,078 (225.209) 37. 297 316,908 159.609 Program(Admin Expenses wages & Benefits Occupancy TelephOne Equipment l ease & Maintenance Postage Supplies Ins urance Equipment & Furniture Depreciation TechnolOgy Dues & Spons orship Books & Subscriptions 251 .428) 202.428 4 ,729 "' 37 195 8,600 100 234 39 Budget CMF Core ~ To tal ' 722,200 100 23,525 1.170 22.145 3 .795.667) 722,200 3.500 36, 100 1.919,035) 307.633) (304,172) (121.523) (95,091) (11 .556) 1.539,090 250.508 248,072 97.523 73,091 8.956 158,413 30.204 25.156 1,000 929 1,574 957 3.460 1,500 215 52 100 119 510 1,100 475 1.250 11.610 11,000 14.100 978 26,600 75, 100 675 2,810 100 100 (123,045) 93,045 16,556 3 .026.527 761.800 235,058 362,000 1.000 200 500 CommunicationsiPublications Professional Services 705 13,188 Travel Training & Seminars Conference & Meeting 17,704 1,594 3,249 4 9.148 9,007 2,610 6,454 1.956 1.795 12 23.658 57,572 199,307 36.505 75 Total Program/Ad m in 10,133 GRANTS Challenge Grants Mini-Grants Computer Grants Other G rants 561 41 ,025 10,359 1,050 ( 175) 38,974 10.133 16,556 26 ,165 5.530 31,000 56,000 95, 100 622,200 382.705 4 .000 20,000 39,000 Total G rants 2.600 39.000 Excess Revenues O ver Expenditures (37,297) Beginning Net A sset s Transfer from Other Funds Ex cess Revenues over Ex penditures Ending Net A ssets 212,485 45.897 $166.588 S :\Finance\Finandat Statements\08·09\CMF FS 12- 31- 08 (340.566) 1,819,686 413 ~6a) $ 1,406.1 20 (2 17,181) 1,044,771 259.181 $785,590 (241.428) 1,207,662 2.600 (1.738,397) (287.013) 8.877,491 1,425.335 (290.~28) (2.096.~97) (344.~13 $917,234 $6,781,094 $1.081.322 (287,046) 1.436,583 343,.;.6) $ 1.093,537 ( 107,656) (89,647) 568,371 (131 .~56 $436.71 5 30,000 30,000 ( 11.556) (123 ,045) 456,336 56.959 575,651 111 ,~7) (14 ,;56 153,045 $422,606 $344 ,689 $42.803 71 ,600 71 ,600 119,600 139,600 (3 ,480.832) 17,681,330 17,681,330 (4,203.~32 13 .478.298 ~ �CMF Council of Michi an Foun~ations Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. Date: February 13, 2009 Memo to: Melonie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board of Trustees From: Rachel Mraz, CMF Trustee and Investment Committee Member and David R. Lindberg, Vice President Finance & Administration Re: December 31, 2008 Investment Report The following Resolution is presented fo r consideration: R ESOLVED that the December 31, 2008 Investment Report be accepted as presented. On a quarterly basis, the combined Investment Committees for the Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF), Midwest Community Foundations' Ventures (MCFV), Learning to Give (LTG) and the Michigan AIDS Fund (MAF), meet to review the investment performance for the operating and permanent endowment funds. New Business On February 12, 2009, the Investment Committee reviewed and approved the enclosed report. Since the October 13, 2008, CMF Board meeting, the Investment Committee has addressed the following items: After careful analysis the committee approved the remainder of the CMF Endowment Pool Investments be moved into the TIFF Multi Asset Fund. The CMF Executive Committee approved this recommendation on February 9, 2009. See attached memo. CMF also has a $1 million private equity commitment with the Commonfund of which $150,000 has been called to date. CMF also holds a $3 million endowment fund for the Learning to Give/LEAGUE project that is scheduled to be turned over to the LEAGUE by 20 10. Due to the entry and exit fees for the TIFF Multi Asset Fund this endowment fund will remain invested in standard asset allocation funds that CMF has used in the past. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\lnvestment Report 12-31 -08.doc �Investment Report Page 2 Alternative vs. Standa rd Allocation Investment Pools With the addition of the TIFF and Commonfund alternative products, the CMF Endowment Pool now has standard and alternative asset allocation pools. The standard allocation pool is rebalanced on a quarterly basis to the targeted asset allocation noted in the attached report. The TIFF investment product rebalancing is handled by TIFF. The combined allocation of the standard and alternative allocation pools will be monitored on a quarterly basis by the Investment Committee with adjustments between the two pools being made as the Committee deems appropriate. The combined investment return for the CMF Standard and Alternative Pools will be calculated as the various periods become available. The enclosed Investment Report is presented in the fo llowing two sections: Investment Performance Report & Asset Allocation The benchmark is based on the targeted asset allocation noted in the attached report using the following return information: Asset Class S&P 500 S&P 400 S&P 600 EAfE Lehman Bros. Aggregate Allocation 39.0% 10.0% 6.0% 14.0% 3 1.0% Investment Perfor mance Comparison Report In addition to the Cambridge & Associates, Inc. pool of colleges, universities, and foundations, the committee has recently added the TIFF Multi-Asset fund for comparative purposes. The TIFF product is unique in the fact that it offers smaller foundations access to alternative investment products which have enhanced returns over the last several years. The reason this report lags the CMF Investment Report by one quarter is due to the time it takes Cambridge & Associates to collect the results from the pool participants. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\lnvestment Report 12-310S.doc �Council of Michigan Foundations Investment Report December 31, 2008 Investment Balanc e 12-31-08 Actual Asset Allocation Money Mkt Tar geted Asset Allocation Money Mkt. Operating Funds CMF Operating & Special Projects $2,960,431 100% 100% MCFV Special Projects $3,356,354 100% 100% KYIP Fund $5,271,474 100% 100% Michigan AIDS Fund $264,055 100% 100% Learning to Give $179,737 100% 100% Note: All operating funds are invested in money market accounts. CMF Combined Endowment Pool -Asset Mix Market Value Equities Fixed Income Real Estate Alternatives Cash Total $7,873,775 3,866,136 13,604 1,034,455 78,880 12,866,850 % 61 .2% 30.0% 0.1 % 8.0% 0.6% 100.0% Endowment Pool Compound Annual Rate of Return One Year Three Year Five Year 10Year Ac tual Investment Return -26.31% N/A N/A N/A Blended Benchmark -24.37% N/A N/A N/A The CMF Endowment Pool has been broken down into two separate pools, a standard pool and an alternative pool. The asset mix listed above represents the combination of both pools. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\lnvest Report 12-31-08 �Council of Michigan Foundations Investment Report December 31, 2008 CMF Standard Endowment Pool- Asset Mix Market Value LargeCap MidCap SmaiiCap International Real Estate Equity Trust Total Equities $3,328,564 815,278 584,474 1 ,285,165 Cash Equivalents Short Bond Fund Bond Fund High Yield Bond Total Cash & Fixed Income Grand Total $ Actual % Target % 6,013,481 35.6% 8.7% 6.3% 13.8% 0.0% 64% 37% 9% 6% 13% 5% 70% 78,880 1,380,249 1,320,009 550,315 3,329,453 0.8% 14.8% 14.1% 5.9% 36% 0% 13% 13% 5% 30% 9,342,934 100% 100% Standard Endowment Pool Compound Annual Rate of Return One Year Three Year Five Year 10 Year Actual Investment Return -26.28% -3.88% 1.24% 2.68% Blended Benchmark -24.37% -3.91 % 0.89% 2.07% S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\lnvest Report 12-31-08 �Learning to Give Investment Report December 31, 2008 LTG Endowment Fund -Asset Mix Market Value LargeCap MidCap SmaiiCap International Real Estate Equity Trust Total Equities $837,969 209,606 138,276 311 ,571 Cash Equivalents Short Bond Fund Bond Fund High Yield Bond Total Cash & Fixed Income Grand Total Actual % $ Target % 1,497,422 37.3% 9.3% 6.2% 13.9% 0.0% 66.7% 37% 9% 6% 13% 5% 70% 23,418 302,140 309,800 113,907 749,265 1.0% 13.4% 13.8% 5.1 % 33.3% 0% 13% 13% 5% 30% 2,246,687 100% 100% Endowment Pool Compound Annual Rate of Return One Year Three Year Five Year 10Year Actual Investment Return -26.39% N/A N/A N/A Lipper Median Benchmark -24.37% -3.91 % 0.89% 2.07% Investment of this new endowment fund took place in May 2006 This fund was established with a $3,000,000 grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materials\lnvest Report 12-31-08 �Council of Michigan Foundations Investment Performance Comparison 9/30/2008 Actual Returns Period Ending Quarter One Year Blended Benchmark -7.42% CMF Cambridge Pooled Pool Funds (Median) -6.75% -10.80% TIFF Multi Asset -1 0.88% -14.15% -13.91% -14.20% -1 2.95% Three Years 1.89% 2.54% 3.80% 4.96% Five Years 6.07% 6.85% 7.90% 9.92% Ten Years 5.20% 6.04% 7.40% 8.39% Period Ending One Yr Three Yrs -21.3% 0.6% -22.0% 0.2% -18.0% 0.9% 0.6% 4.2% 1.1% -30.5% 4.9% 3.2% Five Yrs 6.0% 5.2% 8.1% 3.8% 9.7% 3.4% Bench Marks W ilshire 5000 S&P 500 Russell 2500 LB Aggregate MSCI EAFE CPI-U Qtr Ending -8.7% -8.4% -6.7% -0.5% -20.6% 0.0% Asset Categories Cambridge Pool US Equities International Equities Fixed Income (less high yield) Cash Other Total Other· Detail Real Estate Hedge Funds Distressed Securities Arbitrage Venture Capital Private Equity Oil & Gas Partnerships High Yield Bonds Other NMAA Absolute Return Commodities Othe r 23.6% 18.6% 17.7% 3.0% 37.1% 100.0% Asset Allocation CMF Target 55.0% 14.0% 26.0% 5.0% 100.0% 3.8% 13.4% 2.1% 5.3% 1.7% 3.8% 1.5% 0.2% 0.6% 1.4% 3.3% 37.1% Ten Yrs 4.0% 3.1% 9.0% 5.2% 5.0% 2.9% TIFF Multi Asset 49.1% Includes Inti & Resource 16.5% 34.4% 100.0% 0.4% 5.0% 1.6% 5.0% 22.9% 3.9% 5.6% 34.4% • Represents the latest return numbers available from Cambridge & TIFF. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2008-09\2.24.09 Meeting Materia ls\lnvest Report 12-31-08 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Financials Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book financials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book financials. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50760 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/e79de33eb27b9050a748f413c8e3d333.pdf a24ef8d6398c8db8e4b4f0cfc7d2b8ac PDF Text Text CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Serving grantmakers. Advoncing giving. February 15, 2009 Memo to: Melonie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board of Trustees From: Carol Paine McGovern and Andrea Cole, Co-Chairs Government Relations Committee Re: Council on Foundations (COF) 2009 Agenda for Philanthropic Partnership & Foundations on the Hill The purpose of this Memo is two fold: first to review and take action on the COF Agenda for 2009 and second to provide an update on proposed activities for our 31 sr Annual Foundations on the Hill. I. COF 2009 Agenda for Philanthropic Partnership The COF Board will be considering a 9 point agenda for 2009 at its March Board Meeting as rec01mn ended by its Publ ic Policy Committee, on which Rob Collier and LaJeune Montgomery Talley from the Kellogg Foundation serve: I) Permanent Extension and Expansion of the IRA Charitable Rollover. 2) Simplification of the Private Foundations Excise Tax on Net Investment Income, if not included in the Economic Stimulus. 3) Enactment of a Low-Profit Limited Liability Company (L3C) Proposal. 4) Supporting Enhanced Deduction for Food Donations to American Indian Tribes. 5) Research and resolution on the issue of Orphan Trusts moving outside the community of the original donor. 6) Improvements to the Donor-advised Fund, Supporting Organization Reforn1s in the Pension Protection Act of2006 (PPA). 7) Foundations as an Allowable Entity to Distribute Specially Designated Funds. 8) Adopt a formal position advocating for a permanent Estate Tax with a $3.5 million deduction per individual and a 45% tax rate. 9) Promote a White House Conference on Philanthropy in 2010. CMF already has positions on nu mbers l , 2, 3, and 6. We are not recommending that CMF support item 4 because the Tribes of Michigan are not supportive. We feel that it is important to take a position on items 5, 7, 8, and 9. Therefore we are proposing the following Resolution for your consideration and action: RESOLVED that CMF support the addition of Goals to its 2009 Legislative Priorities Statement that address the issues of: orphan trusts, community foundations distributing d esignated fed eral funds, a formal position with goals for the Estate Tax in 2010 and promotion of a White House Conference on Philanthropy in 2010 as summarized below: �Government Relations February 2009 Page 2 Background 5) Orphan Trusts- the more than 4,000 charitable trusts identified by the Foundation Center that have institutional trustees, such as banks, but that no longer have ties to the donor or members ofthe donor's family who could guide grantmaking. Position: A positive outcome would be for orphan trusts to remain within their communities of origin, perhaps under the control of the local community foundation or with the community foundation handling grantmaking. Not ready to propose a legislative response at this time, COF will begin conversations with appropriate parties and conduct appropriate research to determine how to address this issue, whether through federal or state legislation or through voluntary strategies. Rationale: These orphan trusts have increasingly attracted legislative and media attention because they are rapidly growing in number, the fin ancial institutions are increasing their fees to manage these funds, and many of these funds are away from their community of origin due to bank mergers. The Senate Finance Committee has actively engaged COF to help find ways to keep these funds within their community of origin. Doing so would be of benefit to our communities and our community foundations. COF w ill convene a small group of community foundation leaders and representatives of the financial services sector (preferably some corporate giving members from that sector) to address concerns around donor intent and loss of the relationship between the community and the trust. The initial goal of this effort is to proactively share information with the sector on how to deal with the issue of orphan trusts at the state and federal levels. These activities might possibly lead to legislative remedies in 2009. 7) Foundations as an Allowable Entity to Distribute Specially Designated Funds Position: CMF supports the legislative mandate that would allow state governors to authorize community foundations to distribute economic stimulus funds to local communities. NOTE- CMF has a history of distributing settlement funds in Michigan as noted in the new publication in the back pocket featuring the Tobacco Settlement Funds. Rationale: By authorizing community foundations as distributions centers for stimulus funds, several benefits will occur: one, funds will be distributed quickly; two, funds go to those most in need; three, funds will often leverage private/philanthropic resources; and four, funds will support innovative, reforn1-based delivery methods. Beyond the existence of the economic stimulus package, this authorization can be applied in different scenarios as philanthropy seeks opportunities to partner with our federal and state governments. Such partnerships can provide community foundations the unique opportunity to distribute and leverage resources for local communities during emergencies. �Government Relations February 2009 Page 3 8) Estate Tax Reform Position: CMF supports an estate tax with an exemption of $3.5 million per spouse and a 45% rate for 2010. The Internal Revenue Code currently imposes both a gift tax on certain lifetime transfers and an estate tax on certain transfers at death. NOTE- CMF would couple this position with our current priority of seeking reinstatement of the Federal Credit for State Death Taxes Paid- see Attachment A. CMF, like COF, has until now has not taken a position on the Estate Tax. Rationale: President Obama's decision to seek prompt action on the estate tax w ill be based on his need to raise revenue - reinstating the estate tax in 2010 will generate tens of billions of dollars that under PA YGO may be used to fund other Administration priorities. The Obama tax plan calls for providing a $7 million exemption per couple, with a 45% tax rate to apply on the excess. Under current law, the estate, gift, and generation skipping transfer taxes were gradually reduced between 2002 and 2009. In 2002, the unified credit effective exemption amount increased to $1 million, and the highest estate and gift tax rate was 50%. In 2007 and 2008, the highest estate and gift tax rate was 45%. In 2009, the unified credit effective exemption amount for estate tax purposes will be increased to $3.5 million. 9) White House Conference on Philanthropy in 2010 Position: CMF supports COF in seeking a White House Conference on Philanthropy in 2010. Rationale: COF intends to use this conference as a catalyst for continued activity and dialogue for the grantmaking community- especially as it relates to the potential for partnership between public, private and philanthropic sectors. Furthermore, the conference will assist in educating policymakers and the American public on the contributions of, potential for, and positive impact generated by philanthropy. On October 22, 1999, President Clinton and the National Endowment for the Humanities convened the first "White House Conference on Philanthropy: Gifts to the Future." This conference brought together individuals engaged in philanthropy to highlight this American tradition of charitable giving; to discuss the diverse and changing face of philanthropy; and to explore how to preserve and expand this tradition for future generations. NOTE: CMF played a role in the Clinton White House Conference with both Dottie Johnson and a Y ACer from Battle Creek testifying. In addition, CMF will continue to work with COF staff in support of the following regulatory activities: 1) Improvements to the donor-advised fund and supporting organization reforms included in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) Key issues to address include: �Government Relations February 2009 Page 4 • Clarifying and improving the regulation of donor-advised funds to: o o o o • Let civic organization and similar group scholarship programs operate as they have in the past Allow the purchase of good and services from commercial vendors Exempt funds created by public charities and governmental entities Exempt, with appropriate safeguards, funds that make grants to individuals in hardship situations Clarifying and improving the regulation of supporting organizations to: o o Suspend penalties for grants to certain Type III supporting organizations until the IRS can update Publication 78 to identify the organizations that fall within this category Clarify the control test for Type I supporting organizations that support a class of charities. 2) Community Foundation Compliance Check Survey: The IRS is now reviewing the responses to the 3,700 organizations that submitted the Survey and may conduct as many as 100 audits to verify the information they received . Activities will include communicating to the IRS CMF's position on the agency's continued application of community trust regulations to community foundations and support of any members who are selected for audit analysis. CMF also hopes to help COF engage the IRS in ways that will distinguish true community foundations from other entities that may be included in the original survey. 3) International Regulations: CMF supports COF's work to create a centralized source for determinations that a foreign nongovernmental organization is the equivalent of a domestic public charity. COF also plans to seek the Treasury Department replacing Treasury's "Anti-Terrorist Financing Guidelines" with the "Principles of International Charity" developed by a working group convened by COF. II. 31st Annual Foundations on the Hill Attachment B is the Agenda for Foundations on the Hill - March 24 and 25. We are excited about the meeting from 11:00 am to 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24 with the Obama Administration that will begin our visits. We will have an attendance report to share at the Board Meeting. �Reinstatement of Federal Credit for State Inheritance and Estate Taxes Paid and for State Generation Skipping Transfer Taxes Paid Position: The Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF) supports reinstatement of the credits for state inheritance and estate taxes paid and state generation skipping transfer taxes paid as consideration is given to changes to the Federal estate tax. Background The wealth being taxed at the Federal level is being derived from taxpayer estates accumulated at a state level. Prior to 2004 the Federal estate tax system recognized this by providing that a share of the estate tax, through the form of a credit, be returned to the source state for redistribution there. In addition providing a share of the Federal estate tax revenues through a credit helps to offset the lost state capital gain revenues caused by the step-up in basis provided to the heirs in the assets they inherit. As the basis in inherited property is adjusted to date-of-death value, significant capital gains can be avoided by the heirs when the inherited property is subsequently sold. This step-up in basis also affects capital gain tax collections in many states. Prior to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of2001 (EGTRRA), Federal tax law provided a credit against the Federal estate tax tor state inheritance and estate taxes paid. See Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") § 2011 The Internal Revenue Code also provided a credit of 5% against the Federal generation-skipping transfer tax due for generation-skipping transfer taxes paid to a state. See IRC § 2604. Both of these tax credits were repealed at the end of2004. The credit for state generationskipping transfer taxes paid was not replaced. The credit for state inheritance and estate taxes paid was replaced with a Federal estate tax deduction for state death taxes paid. See IRC §2058. Prior to the repeal, most states had laws in effect that allowed the states to "pick up" the amounts allowable as a Federal estate tax credit (for both estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes) by having decedent estates pay the maximum Federal credit to the state. The effect of this was tax neutral to decedent estates as the estate tax had to be either paid to the Federal government or the state. The existence of these state laws did not increase estate taxes- they merely permitted states to share in the Federal estate tax collections. After the repeal, states lost estate tax revenues, and Michigan lost more than $200 million a year. In some cases states have chosen chose to adopt state inheritance and estate taxes that could increase the amount of taxes due at death, so that some decedent estates have to pay Federal and state inheritance/estate taxes. Introduction of legislation proposing a new inheritance tax in Michigan resulted in some taxpayers transferring residences in an effort to minimize the cost of dying by avoiding state inheritance/estate tax systems. �Impact on Taxpayers of Change to Deduction Besides the obvious loss of revenue to the states, the change of the credit to a deduction also resulted in higher taxes to some decedent estates. The reason is that a credit reduces the Federal estate tax burden dollar for dollar - whereas a deduction reduces the benefit to the maximum rate of Federal estate tax. For example, a credit results in $1 reduction in Federal estate tax for every $1 paid to the state. A deduction results in a 45 cent reduction in Federal estate tax paid for every $1 paid to a state ($1 times the Federal estate tax rate of 45%). Other effects of maintaining the status guo and continuing the Federal Estate Tax after 2009 Projections estimate that the states will not collect an estimated $4 to $9 billion in 20 10 and Michigan will loose in excess of $200 million, and each year thereafter, in estate tax revenue. This figure is based on 10.4% (the repealed marginal state death tax credit rate at a $3.5 million taxable estate) of $88 billion understood to be the projected taxable value of estates if the 2009 estate tax structure remains in force. Actual lost state revenue could be higher or lower based on number of estates and because the repealed state death tax credit was graduated with a maximum marginal rate of 16%. There will be additional tax burdens and complexity for decedent estates and taxpayers whose states adopted new inheritance and estate taxes caused by the change from credit to deduction. As states determine whether to adopt a separate state inheritance tax or not in order to collect revenues and/or attract new residents, there will be increased inter-state competition for taxpayers. And there will likely be an ancillary transfer of revenue and support (income, property and sales taxes, registration fees, charitable contributions) between states as taxpayers switch residences to avoid state level inheritance taxes Continuation of the 2009 Federal estate tax provisions would leave the state inheritance and estate tax deduction in place- which has also been phased out. Separate legislative action is required to reinstate the credit. Additionally, the state inheritance and estate tax and state generation-skipping transfer tax credits could be made applicable for estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2008 in order to provide this revenue source to the states in 2009. January 2009 For additional information please contact Robin Ferriby, Vice President Philanthropic Services, Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan, (313.961.6675) �CMF Council of M ichigan Foundations ACTIVITIES AGENDA Foundations on the Hill 2009 5trving gtontmokers. Advoncing gfving. Tuesday, March 24 Check-in/drop luggage at the Hotel Helix 1430 Rhode Island Avenue Taxi to lunch & activities at Almas Temple Club (11:00 a.m.-2:15p.m.) 1315 K Street NW Foundations, the Economy and the Administration 11:00 a.m. Lunch Served 12:00 p.m. Tax Writing Committee Panel 12:15 p.m. 1:00-2:15 p.m. The Economy: Impact on Foundations and the Nonprofit Sector 2:15p.m. Senator Stabenow, 133 Hart Senate Building 2:45p.m. Orientation for CMF Members Location: Capitol Visitor's Center- Senator's Visitor Center, Room 214 Visits with Representatives (final schedule will be emailed) 5:00p.m. Senator Carl Levin, 269 Russell Senate Building 6:30p.m. Dinner with Michigan colleagues W cdncsday, March 25 6:45 a.m. Hotel check-out & meet in lobby of the Hotel Helix Taxi to breakfast at The Almas Temple Club, 1315 K Street NW 7:00a.m. Breakfast with COF/Forum colleagues at The Almas Temple Club 9:00a.m. Shuttle buses to Capitol Hill 9:30 a.m. - 12noon Group Visits with Michigan Delegation (final schedule will be emailed) 12:00 p.m. Lunch in the Rayburn Building Cafeteria, B-357 1:00-3:30 p.m. Group Visits with Michigan Delegation (see attached schedule) 4:00p.m. Depart Capitol Hill for Airport 4:30p.m. OPTIONAL - For those staying - Debriefing Session with Regional Associations Thursday, March 26 7:30 a.m. OPTIONAL University of Michigan Alumni Breakfast Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill 400 New Jersey Avenue, NW � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Government-Relations-Committee-Report Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book government relations committee report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book government relations committee report. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50761 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/a6a8f51754caf46c3b8204759f07ece2.pdf d56e9f1278899bd41a1eb54eca6109f5 PDF Text Text Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families J ennifer M. Granholm Governor State of Michigan State of the State Address State Capitol • Lansing • M ichigan Tuesday, February 3, 2009 �Lieutenant Governor Cherry, Speaker Dillon, Majority Leader Bishop, members of my Cabinet, fe llow citizens, my beloved family: good evening. There are many familiar faces in the chamber this evening, but there are also more than 40 representatives joining us for the first time. Congratulations to you and your new leaders M inority Leader Prusi and M inority Leader Elsenheimer. We welcome a new member to o ur state's highest court - Justice D iane Hathaway. And let us also recognize State Board of Education President Kathleen Strauss who has now become that body's longest serving president. Before I begin this evening, we must take a moment to reflect on the service of the sons and daughters of Michigan who defend freedom far fro m our shores, and the service of the first responders who give their all to protect our safety here at home. Sgt. Brooke Murphy is here, just returned last week from duty in Iraq. She represents a ll of the men and women who are serving on our behalf. We stand with her in awe of their commitment, and we offer a moment of silence for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. As we gather this evening to take stock of our state, I will not sugarcoat the severity of the crisis we face. This past year has been brutal. Like few others in our history. The nation's financial system teetered on the brink of collapse. Our auto companies fought for their very existence. And as the bottom fe ll out of the national economy, the job situation in M ichigan has gone from bad to worse. Families across our state can only wonder and worry what new threat tomorrow will bring. Breadwinners worry they'll find a p ink slip in this week's pay envelope or empty packing boxes on their desk on Friday morning. Any honest assessment of our state's economy has to recognize that things are likely to get worse before they get better. But if there is one thing I want you, the citizens of Michigan, to know this evening, it is this : Things will get better. M ichigan will weather this economic storm because our people are resourceful and resilient and because our battle plan is focused o n the three things that matter most: • • • fighting for more good paying jobs in Michigan; educating and training our people to fill those jobs; And protecting our fam ilies during the worst economic conditions in more than a quarter of a century. The days when our government could be all things to all people are behind us. This is no time fo r special interests or pet projects. It's a time that de mands relentless focus and discipl ine. Good-paying jobs. Education and tra ining. Protecting o ur people. Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 2 �After years of seeing our economy battered like no other state by the combination of global market forces hammering the auto industry and trade policies sucking jobs overseas, fortunately, Michigan now has a friend in the White House who shares our agenda. I say this based on pragmatism, not partisanship. President Obama 's priorities are nearly identical to ours. He, too, is focused on jobs for middle America and new, renewable energy jobs. He, too, is focused on education. He too is focused on protecting people. H e's proposed a sweeping economic recovery plan for the nation. As the details of that plan take shape, we know o ne thing for certain. We, in Michigan, will use that recovery plan to accelerate our own. We are not starting from scratch. We have already made renewable energy a key focus of our economic development strategy. We' re already transforming education and training. And we've already made tough choices in our budget. So, whi le Michigan's budget situation is difficult, it pales in comparison to many states' now drowning in red ink. While o ther states will use this federal recovery fund ing simply to survive, Michigan will use it to move further and faster into a better future. When that stimulus package is signed by the president, I'll come back to you w ith the specifics for Michigan. But let there be no confusion about this: I f anyone thinks we should use the stimulus package to create a bigger government in Michigan, they should think again. I have a veto pen and I will use it. The president's economic recovery plan is a one-time opportunity, not a permanent funding stream. One-time money w ill not weaken our long-term resolve to keep our fiscal house in order. We must reform our government to meet the needs of our new economic realities long after the stimulus funds are gone. That is why I have asked Lt. Governor Cherry to lead a comprehensive effort to dramatically change the shape and size of state government- reducing the number of our departments from 18 to 8, reforming our civil service system, creating public/private partnerships, and infusing technology everywhere - because we won't settle for 9 to 5 government in a 24/7 world. I'm asking our team to continually provide better service at less cost to taxpayers. That starts at the top. Today, the Lt. Governor and I have urged the State Officers Compensation Commission to reduce the salaries of all state elected officials in Michigan by I 0 percent. With families across M ichigan struggling to make ends meet, we must tighten our belts as well. I thank you in advance for doing your part. While many of the reforms in the structure of state government will require detailed legislation or even changes to our constitution, others will be contained in the budget I propose to you next week. A recent national survey showed that since 200 I , Michigan has done more to restrain general fund spending than any state in the country. A lready, I've cut more than any governor in M ichigan history. And the budget I present to you next week will cut even deeper. Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 3 �I will recommend eliminating virtually all earmarks. While some fund helpful services, we simply can't afford them any more. I will recommend eliminating funding for both state fa irs, because while they are a wonderful tradition, the state fairs are not an essential purpose of government. I 'm grateful that others are stepping forward to continue this tradition. I will recommend eliminating the Department of History, Arts and Libraries and findi ng other means to support these important functions . I will recommend returning enforcement of wetlands protections to the federal government where more staff exists to effectively safeguard our natural resources. I will recommend additional reforms to our j ustice system that bring down the cost of corrections, while continuing to reinvest in more law enforcement on the street. Over the last six years, we have reduced corrections spending by $460 million, closing nine prison facilities in the process. We'll close three more in the coming months. Soon, I also will recommend long-term reforms to achieve affordable but stable fun ding for maintenance and repairs to our roads, bridges and transit systems. Jobs We wi ll live within our means and reform government, so that we can relentlessly focus on what everyone in Michigan cares most about: jobs. The fact that our auto companies have faced the real threat of bankruptcy only confirms that there is no other long-term course for Michigan in the 21'1 century than to diversify. But let me be clear - diversifying our economy does not mean deserting our major industry. We are justifiably proud of the American automobile industry, and we are prouder yet to be its home. And when pundits and ill-informed politicians take cheap shots at our auto companies and auto workers, we will continue to call them out and take them on. We will be armed w ith the facts about the incredible transformation this industry is undergoing and the g reat products it produces now and the awesome products in the pipeline. And we will keep Michigan positioned as the global center of an increasingly green auto industry. But there's real pain in the auto world. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost since 2000, and there are still more job losses ahead. Those losses have fue led our determination to bring new industries to Michigan - not j ust new businesses - entire new industries. Now, the cynics and skeptics will tell us we can't do it - that we'll never attract a new economic sector to an old manufacturing state like Michigan. But we already have. Here's one example: Since enacting the nation's most aggressive film incentives in April, we have seen more than 70 film and TV projects slated for production in Michigan, bringing some $430 million in economic activity here. Thank you, Senator Allen, for your leadership on this one. Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 4 �Tonight, I'm pleased to make three major announcements: Wonderstruck Animation Studios will invest $86 million to build a new studio in Detroit; Stardock Systems, a digital gam ing manufacturer, will build its production facilities in Plymouth; and Motown Motion Pictures w ill invest $54 million to build their new film studios at a former GM plant in Pontiac. Motown Motion Pictures alone, spurred by the leadership of Michigan 's own A I Taubman, here tonight, will create 3,600 jobs, including many for those young creative workers we want to keep in Michigan. Our success with the film industry is not an isolated example. The renewable energy industry is already providing new jobs and better lives across our state. Don't take my word for it. Ask the thousand people hired by Hemlock Semiconductor near Saginaw, the world 's largest manufacturer of the key ingredient in solar panels. Ask the former Electro lux workers in Greenville who now manufacture solar panels for United Solar Ovonic. Ask them, and they w ill tell you what it fee ls like to earn a good wage in an industry that is growing by leaps and bounds. And the great thing about this new energy industry is that, just like our auto industry, it creates a ll kinds ofjobs for all kinds of people. The job your neig hbor is looking for today and the job your child will go to college for tomorrow. Jobs for e lectricians installing wind turbines in the Thumb. Jobs for machinists making the parts for those wind turbines in Eaton Rapids. Jobs for factory workers assembling wind turbines in Novi. Jobs for sales men and women selling solar panels in Auburn Hills. Jobs for workers to manufacture those solar panels in Greenville. Jobs for truck drivers hauling the waste from paper mills to biorefineries in the U.P. Jobs for carpenters weatherizing homes in Detroit and Muskegon. Jobs for manufacturing workers making energy-efficient siding in Midland. Jobs for engineers designing the electric car battery in Ann Arbor. The fact that these jobs exist in Michigan today is no accident. These jobs are here because we put a strategy in place to bring them here - often by beating out other states and other countries to get them. In December, we passed ground-breaking incentives to make sure the batteries that will soon power electric cars are made in Michigan. Thank you, Representative Gonzales, for your leadership on this legislation. Within weeks of passage, GM announced it will assemble the battery packs for the Volt, its new electric vehicle, right here in Michigan. And Al23 Systems, a Massachusetts company, announced it is seeking almost $2 billion in federal loans to build up to 5 million electric car batteries a year and employ some 14,000 workers righ t here in Michigan. They weren't just choosing Michigan because they like our lakes and thousands of miles of coastline. They chose Michigan because we acted to bring this industry here. We want the batteries here. We want those e lectric cars researched, desig ned and assembled here. And we want other kinds of a lternative energy jobs. Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 5 �Last year, I said that we would look attractive to renewable energy companies only if we, as a state, set a firm goal for the use of renewable energy. Thanks to you - and to Representative Mayes and Senator Birkholz - that goal became law in October. Barely a few months later, workers across Michigan began pulling down good paychecks because of your action. Check this out: Since that law was passed, three wind turbine manufacturers announced their expansions in Michigan: Mariah Power in Manistee, Global Wind Systems in Novi, and Cascade Swift T urbine in Grand Rapids. Uni-Solar announced another new solar panel factory in Battle Creek. HSC announced a billion dollar expansion for solar panel materials near Saginaw. Dow Coming announced a new solar panel facility. These companies are generating thousands of jobs. And tonight, I'm announcing that Great Lakes Turbine wi ll locate in Monroe, creating hundreds more jobs building wind turbines. We have great engineers, a phenomenal manufacturing workforce, and you gave the catalyst we needed to attract those companies. But we need more jobs - a lot more. So tonight, I am announcing the next phase of our plan. The demand for wind and solar power in this country is about to explode. President Obama has announced ambitious plans to double our nation's use of these renewable energy sources in just three years. As the nation's demand for renewable energy goes up, so, too, does the demand for the technologies and products that are critical to the new energy industry. We will seize upon this surging demand for renewable energy to increase the supply of good-paying jobs in Michigan. So here's our next aggressive goal: By the year 2020, Michigan will reduce our reliance on fossi l fuels for generating electricity by 45 percent. We will do it through increased renewable energy, gains in energy efficiency and other new technologies. You heard me right: a 45 percent reduction by 2020. How will we reach this 45-by-20 goal and get the jobs that come with it? Instead of spending nearly $2 billion a year importing coal or natural gas from other states we'll be spending our energy dollars on Michigan wind turbines, Michigan solar panels, Michigan energy-efficiency devices, all designed, manufactured and installed by ... Michigan workers. First, I w ill ask the Legislature to make Michigan the fi rst state in the nation to let every homeowner, every business, become a renewable energy entrepreneur who can make money by installing solar panels or wind systems on their home or business and selling that renewable energy back to the power company. Through this legislation, we wi ll create a powerful new market for large and small turbines and solar panels made by Michigan workers. Second, I am asking our Public Service Commission to put o ur utility companies in the energy efficiency business by changing how rates are set. Today, these companies make money selling us electricity and natural gas. The more you use, the more money they make. Tomorrow, they'll make money by helping us use less of both. Instead of investing in new power plants, they will invest in the products and technologies that allow us to use far less energy in our homes. Everything from fuel efficient furnaces to LED light bulbs will produce lower bills for Michigan consumers and more jobs for Michigan workers. Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 6 �Unlike the coal we buy from Wyoming and Montana, money we spend on energy efficiency will produce tens of thousands of jobs in Michigan. As proof that it can be done, our state government has cut electricity use by 23 percent and saved taxpayers some $60 million over the past three years. How did we do it? We installed energy saving light bulbs from Michigan companies in Troy and Detroit. We used Michigan-made heating and air-conditioning equipment from Michigan companies in Kalamazoo and Three Rivers. M ichigan workers have caulked windows, blown insulation, and installed energy-saving devices. Saving Michigan money, creating Michigan jobs. If state government can do this, you can too. The third way we'll create jobs through our aggressive 45-by-20 goal is to create the M ichigan Energy Corps to put thousands of unemployed Michigan citizens back to work this year, weatherizing homes, schools and other publ ic buildings, install ing renewable energy technology, and turning our abundant natural resources into renewable fuels. In the next year a lone, we've set a goal of weatherizing more than I 00,000 homes in our state and installing energy efficiency and renewable energy technology in I ,000 buildings. Every one of those projects means new jobs for people who need them right now. And fourth, we will launch a program called Michigan Saves in conjunction with our utility companies. Michigan Saves will allow Michigan families and businesses to weatherize their homes and install Michigan-made energy efficiency technology with zero up-front charges. The monthly savings will pay the cost of the improvements. Achieving these ambitious goals will a lso lessen the need for a slew of new coal power p lants in M ichigan. That's why I have directed the Department of Environmental Quality to evaluate, in consultation with our Public Service Commission, both the need for additional e lectricity generation and all feasible and prudent alternatives before approving new coal-fired power plants in Michigan. One such alternative is developing technology to prevent coal plants from spewing dirty carbon emissions into the air. That breakthrough technology, and others like it, can create jobs here, too. The nation is moving to a new energy future, but if we are willing to think strategically and act boldly, like we have in other sectors, Michigan can lead job creation in this area too. While this new energy sector represents our single best hope for new investment and new jobs, Michigan's diversification strategy has also targeted other emerging sectors from the life sciences to advanced manufacturing to homeland security. And we have similar results in those sectors. In fact, since we made bipartisan changes to our economic development incentives last year, M ichigan's economic development agency, the MEDC, had the best six months ever in its history for creating jobs: 55,000 jobs; $4.7 billion of investment; 84 companies. This despite the recession. Just since August. Those jobs and businesses are listed on our Web site at www.michigan.gov/jobs. In the year ahead, my motto will continue to be I will go anywhere, do anything to bring jobs to Michigan. My seven overseas jobs missions have brought 45 new businesses, $956 million in investment, and nearly II ,000 new jobs to our state. This year, I wi ll again go wherever there's an opportunity to bring jobs back to Michigan. Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 7 �We are a lso creating new opportunities for Michigan's existing businesses through our Buy M ichigan First directive. Since I issued an order creating a preference for Michigan firms, over 85 percent of your tax dollars spent on state contracts have gone to Michigan businesses. In the year ahead, we will require other units of government in Michigan - our cities and townships, our counties and school districts, o ur colleges and universities - to adopt their own Buy Michigan First policies. We all benefit when we spend our dollars with M ichigan companies. When I talk with people across Michigan they often ask, "What can I do to help?" Here's my simple answer: Whenever you can, buy products made or grown in Michigan. There's no reason we can't a ll root for the home team. Support Michigan. Select Michigan. Buy Michigan. Everything from Ford to Faygo. From Be ll's Beer to Blueberries. While we may court new investment from outside our state, our first love is the businesses that have long called Michigan home. To restore our state's economy, we need to tap the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that fostered the development of our domestic auto industry more than 100 years ago. This year, our Michigan Economic Development Corporation will launch a competition among Michigan universities to develop a comprehensive statewide plan to use our higher education system to maximize entrepreneurial activity in Michigan. This will involve better curricula to train the entrepreneurs we need to spur business growth and job creation, more effective transfer ofuniversity-developed research and technology, and increased assistance for growing Michigan businesses - all designed to power the transformation ofour economy. Our efforts to strengthen Michigan's economy must ofcourse include bringing new life to our urban areas, the anchors ofour regional economies. In 2008, we continued to focus on our Cities of Promise, eight communities that have borne the brunt ofour loss ofmanufacturing jobs. To help bring new investment and new jobs to these communities, we made important changes to our Brownfield program, which is recognized as one ofthe best in the nation. It is now even more effective at turning blighted, functionally obsolete, and contaminated sites in our cities into locations for productive development. In the last year alone, these changes resulted in 16 new projects, nearly 1,000 jobs, and over $500 million ofnew investment in our Cities of Promise. Brownfields represent one kind ofblig ht in our urban areas, dangerous abandoned buildings represent another. They are open invitations to the crime and vandalism that destroy the quality oflife in a neighborhood. Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 8 �To date, we've demolished nearly 3,000 blighted and vacant structures in our Cities of Promise. Thanks to the $98.6 million we were allocated through the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program, the Land Bank and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority will dedicate up to $20 million dollars to help cities demolish even more of these dangerous eyesores and help return their sites into productive assets. We also have a powerful tool to spur urban redevelopment in our nationally recognized Michigan Land Bank. The land bank has worked diligently to make abandoned and foreclosed properties productive and beneficial parts ofour communities. This past year, the land bank increased this return by 221 percent, bringing hundreds ofproperties back to productive condition. In the year ahead, the land bank will offer property for free to any business creating at least 20 green energy jobs in Michigan. This past year, the land bank established the Garden for Growth Program, making state-owned properties available to any citizen wishing to create urban gardens. This has helped to increase access to fresh, healthy, affordable food for our citizens This year, the State Land Bank will partner with local governments to assemble publicly -owned property to create urban farms. By working with agriculture groups and schools, we will work together to educate our young citizens about the benefits ofgrowing food for their families.* E ducation To attract and grow quality jobs, we must have the best trained, best educated workforce. That's why we've set an ambitious goal - to double the number of college graduates in Michigan. And we made progress toward that goal in many ways in 2008. All of our stud ents are now taking a rigorous high school curriculum that prepares them for success in college or technical training. It's one of the toughest in the nation. All of our high school students now take a college entrance exam free of charge. All are e ligible for a $4,000 Michigan Promise scholarship that puts a college degree within the reach of every student. And today, we have a record number of students attending our state universities and community colleges. That's progress. In the year ahead, we will do more to help all students achieve the high goals we've set for them. Our 21" Century Schools Fund will help school districts replace high schools that don't work, with small, rigorous ones that do. Plans are already under way in districts across our state, from Detroit to Flint to Holland, to create more than 25 of these rigorous new high schools that not only keep kids in school but put them on the path to success in college and careers. The success of the Kalamazoo Promise has inspired communities across the nation, but Michigan will now be the first state to replicate that achievement on a large scale. This year, 10 Michigan communities struggling with high rates of poverty will create Promise Zones that use the promise of free college education to spur greatness in our kids and economic development in those communities. Thanks to Representative Melton and Senator VanWoerkom fo r sponsoring this ground-breaking legislation. Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 9 �This year, we will launch a Michigan College Access Network that will bring together foundations, business and labor organizations, the faith-based community, our K-1 2 schools and our higher education institutions to get all Michigan students on the path to education after high school. This new organization will be born at the Governor's Education Summit in April and will make sure every young person in Michigan and their parents know how to plan for, apply for and pay for a college education or technical training.* And we must also help our teachers. We are very proud that Michigan was just named #2 in the country for our percentage of well-qualified teachers in the classroom. With all of our high school students now taking tougher math classes, we must continue to equip those teachers . Beginning this summer, our Algebra for All initiative will give teachers across our state the professional development they need to teach algebra in a proven way that ensures a ll kids master it, whether they're math whizzes or not. Our efforts to expand educational opportunity are not limited to the young. Our No Worker Left Behind initiative will continue to train workers for skilled jobs that are available in Michigan today, providing free college tuition, up to $5,000 per year for two years. Our goal was to train the first 100,000 workers who sig ned up over a three-year period. We're over halfway there, with 52,000 Michigan c itizens getting training through No Worker Le ft Behind for in-demand jobs as nurses or electric linemen or welders or solar panel installers or computer technicians. Fifty-two thousand people, an army of determined citizens who have had the <.:ourage and the resilien<.:e to remake themselves, and in so doing, are helping us day-by-day to remake Michigan. The two critical questions we, as leaders, must answer, are: How do we get more good-paying jobs in Michigan? And how do we make sure our people have the education and training to fill those jobs? And the two critical questions our fami lies must answer are: Where are the kids going to college after high school - not if they are going, but where? W hat training do mom and dad need to move up at work or get a new job in a new field? Today, we are doing more in Michigan to make training and education available to citizens than at any time in our history. I am proud that we are creating these educational opportunities. But it is only Michigan families themselves who can seize such opportunities and build a better future and a better state. Protect As we fight for new jobs, we must do all we can to protect those who are hurting the most under the weight of this economic crisis. As Michigan's families stmggle to keep their homes and their jobs; to pay their bills and send their kids to college, they need us to stand up with them and for them. Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 10 �That is why we have added significantly more resources to the unemployment insurance system a new call center, additional hours, on-line service, more employees - to handle the massive increases in volume. So tonight, I am proposing five additional, urgent measures to protect families during this economic crisis. First, as we accelerate our push to get more kids to college, we cannot have them priced out of the market by tuition increases. I am asking Michigan's universities and community colleges to freeze tuition for the next academic year. No tuition hikes during this year of economic crisis. Second, with thousands of families across our state facing the threat of home foreclosure, I call on the Legislature to pass the Home Foreclosure Prevention Act to give famil ies 90 days to work out new financing for their homes without fear of foreclosure. Thank you, Representative Johnson and Representative Colouris, for your strong advocacy on this issue. This is not a partisan bill - it is a bill that responds to the housing emergency facing Michigan families. Foreclosures devastate families, but they a lso undennine housing values for blocks and whole neighborhoods. I urge both chambers to act immediately, act as if the bank were demanding the keys to your home. Third, I have asked the Public Service Commission to ban utility shut-offs for the remainder of this winter for seniors, people with disabilities, and low- o r no-income households. No more deaths like we saw last month in Bay C ity, where a 93-year-old man froze to death in his home after his utilities were shut off. We must be sure this protection extends to customers of municipal utilities that are not subject to the PSC's authority. Thank you, Senator Barcia and Representative Mayes, or your leadership on this issue. The fourth urgent measure - I call upon every auto insurance company to freeze rate increases for 12 months while the Legislature works to enact comprehensive insurance reform. After holding hearings across the state, Michigan's insurance advocate will tomorrow release a report showing that our citizens are paying among the highest rates in America for auto insurance they are compelled by law to buy. T hat report includes smart, specific proposals to give Michigan drivers the choices that citizens in other states have: solid coverage with fair and affordable rates. If an insurance company refuses to freeze rates during this 12-month period, I am directing the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation to use every administrative tool at its disposal to assure fair and affordable rates for Michigan consumers. Thank you, Senator Scott, for your consistent voice on insurance affordability. Finally, despite our continuing fiscal challenges, it is urgent that we continue to protect the health-care safety net in Michigan. In the budget I submit to you next week, I will ask you to join me in ensuring that we do not strip people of their health coverage in our quest to reduce spending. For the last six tough years, we have refused to take the easy way out by cutting health care to those who are the most fragile. I ' m proud that we have not cut a single child, or senior, or person with a disability off of health care. Not one. Priorities for M ichigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 11 �I am asking you to join me in continuing to protect those whom people of faith often call "the least of these" - who are often invisible to those in the halls of power. Let us commit, during this recession, to be guided by our best angels, as we protect those least able to defend themselves. Denying health care to the vulnerable merely increases the cost for those who are fortunate enough to have coverage. That's not the answer. We can take great pride in the fact that, despite continual deficits, Michigan's number of uninsured children remains one ofthe lowest in the nation. In the year ahead, expanding coverage for those children who remain uninsured will be priority number one. Now that Congress has voted to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program, we will utilize eve1y opportunity to assure that all children in Michigan have access to affordable coverage. We must also work to assure the sustainability ofour insurance market in Michigan to preserve access to affordable coverage for our working families. For many who do not have access to employer-sponsored coverage or are not eligible for public programs, individual coverage is their only insurance option. However, the market for this type of insurance in Michigan is changing as the demand for coverage continues to grow. That is why I have directed the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation to investigate the current conditions in the marketplace and identify options that will help ensure access to affordable health care. I remain hopeful that we can come together in the weeks and months ahead to focus on reforms that achieve these goals in the spirit ofcompromise for a healthier Michigan. We must also continueto do our part to tackle the drivers ofhealth-care costs and improve health outcomes, particularly for our children. During the past several decades, obesity rates for our children have soared among all age groups. Obesity increases the risk ofchronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer, all ofwhich begin during the childhood years. We need urgent action to turn back this rising tide. The Healthy Kids, Healthy Michigan initiative, lead by Michigan's Surgeon General, has established the first-ever, five-year strategic policy plan to address childhood obesity in our communities and our schools. This policy agenda includes targeted approaches that will improve public health by increasing access to physical activity and healthy food choices. Tonight, I am charging the Departments of Community Health, Agriculture, Education, Human Services, Energy, Labor & Economic Growth, and Transportation to work together to begin implementation of the year-one policy agenda. Since our announcement ofthe MI Health Information Network (MIHIN) in 2006, Michigan has been focused on moving the health-care industry into the 21st century by investing in health information technology projects that will revolutionize how care is given and received in our state. Making sure that health care providers know your current medications, your allergies and your relevant medical history in a secure and confidential way will eliminate unnecessQ/y tests and procedures, maximize provider and patient resources, greatly reduce medical errors like drug interactions, and allow for coordination of health care, all ofwhich would bring down the cost ofhealth care. Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 12 �This spring, our Department of Community Health will implement the Michigan Day of Oral Health Outreach (M!-DOOR) initiative to mobilize volunteer dentists, hygienists, and other health professionals to provide free dental care services in the city ofDetroit. This will be the first ofmany days like it in communities across Michigan to provide comprehensive dental care and education focused on prevention for those in need of services. Tonight, I am also renewing the call for Michigan to finally join the 34 other states that have banned smoking in public places. Each year in our state, smoking is responsible for $3.4 billion in health care costs. Factor in the $3.8 billion in productivity losses caused by sm.oking and it's clear that passing smoke-free legislation is a wise investment for our health and our health care system. The scientific evidence is unequivocal. The benefits to our residents are indisputable. And passing smoke-free legislation that p rotects Michigan workers is the right thing to do.* One final word about health care. The National Governors' Associatio n has asked me to co-chair a bipartisan group of the nation's governors that will make recommendations to the president on providing affordable accessible health care for all. I will carry to President Obama Michigan's experiences, your stories, the stories of our families and our businesses struggling to compete in a world where other countries provide health care for their people. M ichigan's message is clear: We must have affordable, accessible health care for a ll Americans. Conclusion Protecting Michigan families from the harsh winds of an economic crisis. Giving our young people and adults in the workforce the skills they need to succeed in a new economy. And creating the good-paying jobs Michigan fami lies need to lead successful lives in the state they love. Those of us chosen to lead Michigan in this time of crisis cannot shrink from this c hallenge. So consider: Is it harder to balance the state budget or the budget of a family that's just gone from two paychecks to one? Does it take more courage to say no to some special interest lobbyist or to tell your spouse and your children that you have no job to go back to Monday morning? No, the challenges we face as leaders don't compare to what Michigan families must overcome every day. I began this evening by talking about Michigan fami lies, their problems and their fears . Let me introd uce you to two of those families. Tyler and Diana Sutton live in Bay City. Tyler is 45. W hen he lost his job as the manager of a sporting goods store two years ago, he wasn't sure what to do next. He'd been in retail for 20 years; no one was hiring. He had three kids; one is about to go to college. Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 13 �While he was on unemployment, he learned about No Worker Left Behind and the training it provided to fill jobs available in the chemical industry. He enrolled at Delta College where he earned an associates degree in chemical processing within a year and a half. Today, he's got a good job w ith good benefits as a processing technician at Dow Corning. And he'll tell you he loves it. Sitting next to the Suttons are Dwayne and Barbara H icks from Fraser in Macomb County. When Dwayne lost his third job because of the economy, after 20 years in the tool and die industry, the Hicks fam ily faced a tough decision. He could take a trades job in South Carolina, or he could go back to school at age 44 fo r a new career in Michigan through No Worker Left Behind. They chose Michigan. While Dwayne had never been to college, he's now enrolled at Macomb Community College where he's earning a degree in information technology. Both Dwayne and Tyler had to swallow their fears about becoming students again in m iddle age; charting a new life course at almost the halfway mark. Dwayne wrote me a great thank you letter in December. He explained: Even though I had received an announcement/rom the state [about the No Worker Left Behind] program, I was reluctant to accept it, partly because I believed that someone with my capabilities could indeed secure work and partly because at 44 years ofage, I had fears that I might be unsuccessful pursuing an education. * But he did accept the state's offer to pay for retraining, and he's almost finished and getting a 3.5 GPA. This is how he closes his letter: I feel that we must pull together to get through this rough patch ofroad and do what is necessary to create an even better Michigan, a place the rest ofour great country can look at and say "they grow leaders there."* Amen, Dwayne. A wise person once said that "courage is the ability to sacrifice what we are for what we could become." M ichigan must summon just such courage to abandon the old ways that no longer serve us. If there are leaders and heroes in this economic crisis, they are the Suttons and the Hicks and the fam ilies like them who face head-on the challenges of change with the courage to g row in a new direction. In the midst of heartache and strife, they fixed on hope and strength to build a better future. Their hope is Michigan's hope. Their strength is Michigan's strength. And fixed on that hope and that strength, we, together, will bui ld a better Michigan. God bless you all, and God bless the g reat state of Michigan. * The italicized sections of text were not included in the version presented by Governor Granho lm on February 3, 2009. Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families State of the State Address February 3, 2009 14 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Granholm-Priorities-for-Economic-Future Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book Granholm priorities for economic future Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book Granholm priorities for economic future. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50762 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/92789abe81aa89fe8519e00c8a404076.pdf 744ecce8e21ce2f83d1f9c1b7ff9e909 PDF Text Text CMF Council of Michi an Fou n:fations Serving 9rantmakers. Advancing giving. February 12, 2009 Memo to: Melonie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board ofTrustees From: John Colina, Chair, Membership Committee, & Jeri Fischer, Membership & Special Projects Director Re: Membership Report The Membership Committee met on January 27, 2009 by conference call pursuant to written notice duly given. Committee members present in addition to Mr. Col ina were Tammy Bailey, Janet Bauer, Carol ine Chambers, Tom Porter and Betsy Upton Stover. Staff present included Kimberly Burton, Rob Collier, Jeri Fischer, Susan Howbert and Dave Lindberg. The following Resolutions are presented for consideration and action. I. New Members RESOLVED that the following grantmakers be approved for membership: The Gerald C. Timmis and Dorothy S. Timmis Foundation, Novi Truman D. Timmis, director • Family foundation created in 1996. Current assets of$1,500. To be fully funded as part of estate. Foellinger Foundation, Fort Wayne, IN Cheryl Taylor, president • Out-of-state private foundation with interests in early childhood, families, youth development and capacity building. Citizens Banking C orporation Charitable Foundation, Fl int Jonathan E. Hohn, assistant vice president • Corporate foundation founded in 1999 with current assets of $310,674 and giving of $903,521 to the arts, economic development, education, housing and human services in Michigan, Iowa and Wisconsin. II. Dropped Members With the addition of these three, CMF will have eight new members for this fiscal year. However, we are preparing that the following 21 grantmakers be dropped from membership as recommended in the next Resolution. RESOLVED that the Membership Committee recommends that the 21 delinquent members as listed below be dropped from the CMF membership as of M arch 31, 2009. �Membership Report February 2009 Page 2 The majority of these foundations are small family foundations that have not responded to repeated efforts to contact them. AT&T (no interest) Bonisteel Foundation (no interest) David A. Brandon Foundation (no interest) Julius V. and Alice G. Combs Foundation (no participation) The Herbert and Junia Doan Foundation (Doan Family Fdn. Member, no need for both) Fibre Converters Foundation, Inc. (no interest) Grand Rapids Jaycees Foundation (no participation) Granger Foundation (no interest) Kaufman Foundation (no participation) Kelly Services, Inc. Foundation (no participation) KINSHIP Foundation (no interest) Charles W. Loosemore Foundation (no interest) FrederickS. & Lezlynne P. Moore Family Foundation (no interest) The Preede Foundation (no interest) Rock Financial- A Quicken Loans Co. (no participation) The NateS. and Ruth B. Shapero Foundation (no interest, low assets) Turn 2 Foundation, Inc. (moved office to NYC) U.S. Trust, Bank of America (two fdns. under management are members) The Valenti Foundation (no participation) The Bill & Sally Wildner Foundation (no participation) Ralph C. Wilson Foundation (no participation) III. Membership Renewals and Retention Requests for membership renewals will be sent in late February with the goal to have renewals in by June 1. The Committee determined that it was not appropriate to include a member needs assessment survey with the renewal process but to conduct such a survey later in the year. It approved a plan to have calls made by Trustees and volunteers from the membership to each member during the period March to May promoting the value of CMF membership. Staff will provide talking points. RESOLVED that each Trustee and other volunteers from the membership be invited to call three members each between March and May 2009 with a goal to promote the value of membership in CMF. IV. Guiding Principles for Corporate Giving Programs In response to requests received from corporate giving program members, the Committee discussed amending the seven Guiding Principles as a condition of membership for Corporate Giving Programs. It was noted that corporate giving program are not separate charitable nonprofits as are corporate foundations. The seven Guiding Principles are: �Membership Report February 2009 Page 3 1. Adhere to the highest standards of ethical behavior in all foundation actions. 2. Honor donor(s) intent. 3. Have an identifiable active governing Board - a decision-making body that sets and regularly reviews policies on: governance, including conflict of interest; grantmaking; finance and administration, including audit; and communications. 4. Be accessible by having basic grantmaking information readily available regarding funding priorities and application requirements. 5. Build constructive relationships based on mutual respect, candor, confidentiality and understanding with the public, applicants, grantees and donors. 6. Strive to include the perspectives, opinions and experiences of the broadest possible cross-section of people to inform the foundation through its grantmaking, through the composition of its board, committees, staff and advisors/consultants and through its business practices. 7. Support continuous learning by trustees, staff and grantees. RESOLVED that the seven Guiding Principles that are a condition of membership be amended for Corporate Giving Program members to: 1. Adhere to the highest standards of ethical behavior in all corporate giving actions. 2. Honor the charitable giving intent of the corporation. 3. Have an identifiable active group within the company that sets and regularly r eviews policies impacting grantmaking, including: conflict of interest, self dealing, finance and communications. 4. Be accessible by having basic grantmaking information r eadily available regarding funding priorities and application requirements. 5. Build constructive relationships based on mutual respect, candor, confidentiality and understanding with the public, applicants and grantees. 6. Strive to include the perspectives, opinions and experiences of the broadest possible cross-section of people to inform the corporate giving program through its advisors/consultants, its business practices, and other interactions with the nonprofit community. 7. Support continuous learning by both corporate staff responsible for giving programs and grantees. V. Activity Summary for period Aprill, 2008 through February 12, 2009 Memberships at 4/ 1/08 New Members Dropped Membership at 1123/09 Renewals# Renewal % Revenue (renewals & new) Additional # Additional $ 397 8 32 373 337 90% $1,002,755 29 $ 167,060 �Membership Report February 2009 Page 4 VI. Summary of current membership 210 Private: Family Foundations Independent Foundations 157 53 95 Community: Foundations Affiliates Donor-Advised Funds 54 33 8 Foundations Giving Programs 24 17 41 Corporate: 18 Public: Foundations Donor-Advised Funds Out-of-State Associate: Private Foundations Totals: 17 1 9 9 373 373 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Membership-Report Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book membership report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book membership report. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50763 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/829f2c8f2bd1be83798fb02da66d7eea.pdf 28911f58bb2e12a9ac22933f67d9050b PDF Text Text Michigan's New Ene Economy Council of Michigan Foundations February 24, 2009 Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency- Four Imperatives 1. Jobs & Economy 2. Climate & Environment 3. Energy Security 4. lntergenerational Equity Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �1. Jobs & Economy • Create jobs • Create clean, nonpolluting energy sources within Michigan • Reduce amount of energy purchased outof-state Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Opportunity for Michigan • International Energy Agency- $20 trillion by 2030 • ASES - $4.5 trillion in economic benefit to U.S. by 2030 • 40 Million jobs by 2030 • By 2030, 1 in 4 jobs will involve advanced energy Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Michigan's Great Strengths • Manufacturing expertise and available facilities • Superior supply chain capacity • Available labor force • Outstanding research universities and excellent community college system • Positioned to develop and commercialize advanced energy storage systems • Great solar base material companies • Outstanding wind power assets Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �2. Climate and the Environment • Focus of intense scientific scrutiny • Modeling efforts all over the world • Extraordinary scientific consensus • C02 concentration is increasing • For the last 650,000 years C02> 300ppm • Now 387 ppm increasing at 2.4 ppm per year Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Greenhouse Effect is Also Undisputed • Of the last 12 years, 11 are warmest years on record • Glaciers are generally in retreat all over the world • Increase in average air and ocean temperatures • Cold days, cold nights and frost less frequent Working to Create Michigan's Future Today ��OAKRIDGE 1\"ATIOJ.'\AL LABORATORY r . S . DEPARTMI.I\T OF E~ERGY ~ U T -ElATTJ::LJ..I: 7 �Climate Warming will make regions feel more tropical Changing IL and MI Summers (JJA) By 2030 c::::::::J By 2095 - �Other Indicators • Glacier National Park- all glaciers gone by 2030 • Himalayan Ice fields - 40°/o of world's population will lose 50 percent of fresh water supply by 2030 • Thermal expansion - 1 to 3 feet by 2100 • Ocean acidification • Loss of hydropower Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Cannot anticipate climate "triggers" • Climate system is highly non-linear • Risks are non-linear • Feedback loops, thresholds that may bring sudden dramatic changes • Characteristic of non-linearity makes climate prediction difficult Working to Create Michigan's Future Today ��Early intervention is imperative • Actions taken today, no matter how dramatic, will not alter climate course we are headed on for the next two decades Rajendra Pachauri- "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment" Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Cost of inaction • Stern Report- inaction reduces global GOP by 5-11 percent annually; mitigation measures would cost 1 percent of global GOP annually. Climate change represents "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen." • German Institute for Economic Research- up to $20 trillion by 21 00 • European Commission's Directorate General for the Environment- $73 trillion by 2200 (in 2000 dollars) Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �3. Energy Security • US uses 21 million barrels per day- 25°/o of global consumption • Import 13.4 million barrels per day • Cost: $487 billion per year (@$120 pb) Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Michigan Fuel Imports • $24+ billion per year • 100°/o of coal used for power generation • 96°/o of transportation fuels • 75°/o of natural gas Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Cost of fuels will increase again • Increasing demand -China and India • Carbon regulation • Cost of extraction and transportation • Diminishing supply Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �First law of Petropolitics: "The price of oil and the pace of freedom always move in opposite directions." Tom Friedman Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �4. lntergenerational Equity The Mora/Imperative Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Advanced Energy Storage Technology Drivers: • Auto industry's need to electrify product lines • Military's need to electrify vehicles and equipment • Large capacity storage to "dispatch" wind and solar energy • Creation of the "Smart-grid" • Low-carbon energy economy Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Advanced Energy Storage Technology Actions: Establish "Battery Cluster Team" Consortium Partners • Michigan Economic Development Corporation • US Department of Defense • US Department of Energy • Government of Sweden • Other Partners Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Advanced Energy Storage Technology Actions: Executed Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) with DOD and DOE Created "Centers of Energy Excellence" • Sakti3 • A123 $335 million in state tax credits for battery development Positioned Michigan for federal investment Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Distributed Generation Drivers: • Create new domestic markets for base material manufacturers • Create markets for small energy systems (wind and solar) • Reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels • Low carbon energy economy Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Distributed Generation Actions: • RPS • Feed-in-tariffs • Net Metering • PAYS ("Michigan Saves") • Municipal bonding to finance systems • Tax exemptions • Subsidies Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Distributed Generation Actions: • Development of "smart-grid" • Vehicle-to-grid interface project • AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) • McKinsey program design assistance Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Wind Power Drivers: • Michigan's strengths • Tool & Die • Metal fabrication • Supply chain development • Universities • Community Colleges Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Total Cumulative Manufacturing Jobs Created by Scenario that Meets 20% of U.S. Electricity Needs From Wind (2007 - 2030) Jobs Created c- 3oo-1.ooo L l 1,000- 5,000 - 5,000 - 10.000 - 10,000 - 20,000 - 20,000 - 30,000 - >30,000 Manufacturing location information from REPP Report by Sterzinger & Svrcek (2004) Major component assLJmptions: 50% of blades are manLt actured in U.S. in 2004 increasing to 80% in 2030, 26% of towers are from the U.S. in 2004 increasing to 50% in 2030 and 20% of turbines are made in the U.S. increasing to 42% by 2030. · -"' Wind_Vision_ Jobs_06-19-2007- DRAFT �Wind Power Actions Phase 1: • Completed wind maps • Catalog financial resource tools • Provide tax incentives • Expedite transmission corridor development • "Dry run" permitting effort • Identify legal impediments • Identify manufacturing sites • Identify brownfield sites • Commence off-shore geomorphology work; fishery habitat studies • Accelerate Anemometer studies; make state towers available Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Wind Power Actions Phase II: • Establish Great Lakes Wind Council • Evaluate natural resource and aesthetic impact • Determine "categorical exclusionary areas" • Identify suitable locations • Engage coastal communities • Determine transmission needs Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Energy Efficiency: Michigan's "First Fuel" Drivers: • Least expensive approach - < $.03kwh • Michigan has significant "low-hanging fruit" • Volatile, escalating fossil fuel costs • Acute need to weatherize housing stock, particularly in urban areas • Train unemployed and underemployed • Create meaningful, enduring jobs Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Energy Efficiency Actions: New Sources of Funding • New Energy Efficiency law - administered by utilities will yields $58 million in 2009 rising to $160 million per year by 2012 • Low income heating assistance • Michigan Housing Development Authority • Job training money • Federal "Stimulus" Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Energy Efficiency Actions: New Programs • New Energy Code • Decoupling - Utility administered energy efficiency programs • Green Jobs (DELEG) • Michigan Energy Conservation Corp • Michigan Saves - statewide PAYS implementation • Energy performance contracting Working to Create Michigan's Future Today �Goals: • Train urban unemployed • Reduce poverty by making energy more affordable • Green housing stock • Further net zero energy outcomes Working to Create Michigan's Future Today � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Michigans-New-Energy-Economy Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book Michigan's New Energy Economy Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book Michigan's New Energy Economy. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50764 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/96d071cf6eaebe4319c336c3570cf8bd.pdf 1d96274f0011c0e864beaa8a3d5d0018 PDF Text Text Demographic Survey Results: Council of Michigan Foundations' Transforming M ichigan Philanthropy throug h Diversity and Inclusio n Initiative Prepared December 2008 by: The Community Research Institute The Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Table of Contents Table of Contents.... Table of Data Tables Executive Summary ......................................... ................... ..................... ! ................... ...... 2 ................................................................................................. 4 Executive Sun1n1ary .......... .......... ....................... ..................... ............................................. 4 About This Report ................................ . .................. 5 Methodology............. ....................... .................................................................................................................. . ................................................... 5 Overview of Findings .6 Characteristics of Participating Foundations ......................... 6 Leadership ............................. . ..................................... 6 Board and Staff Member Demographics ...... .6 Policies and Grantmaking ....... . ..................... 7 Characteristics of Participating Foundations ... . ........... 7 Leadership ................................................................................... ....................... ................................................................................................. 8 Racial Composition of Foundation Leadership ................... . ...................... 8 Board and Staff Member Demographics ............ ............ ......... I I Policies and Grant1naking ................................................ ......................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix 1: Survey l nstmment. ....................... ................... ...... 17 Appendix II : Break-down of Foundation Board and Staff De mographics ...................... ........................ 22 Board/Staff Gender, Race, and Ethnicity by Foundation Type, Grantmaking, Assets, and Region .................... . ...... 22 Board/Staff Non-native English Speaking, Disability Status, and Place of Residence by Fo undation T ype, Grantmaking, Assets, and Region .. ................. 31 Board/Staff Tenure by Foundation Type, Grantmaking, Assets, and Region ...................... . ... 33 Board/Staff Age by Foundation Type, Grantmaking, Assets, a nd Region ........ . ....... 36 Appendix Ill: Racial/ Ethnic Compositio n of Michigan ...................... . .................... 39 ........................................................................... �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Table of Data Tables Number of Foundations Participating by Geographic Region of Main Office Location. ..................... .7 ..................................... 7 Number of Foundations Participating by Foundation Type. .................................................. ............................................................ 7 Number of Foundations Participating by Grantmaking Geography Number of Foundations Participating by Amount Spent on Grantmaking in the Last Year ........... ....................... .................... 7 ............................................ 7 Number of Foundations Participating by Total Assets ........... 8 Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO Disability Status... ............. ....... .8 Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO by First Language ..... .............. .. ....... ............... ... ...... .............. .......................... ........................ ..................... 8 Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO Race. . ... 9 Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO Race by Foundation Type........ ......................................................................... . 9 Percent Distribution of Board Chair and C EO Race by Grantmaking Last Year and Foundation Assets Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO Race by Geographic Region' ........ ... .................... ........................................... 10 Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO Race by Age and Tenure of Board Chair and CEO ........................................ 10 Average (Mean) Percent of Board or Staff Members in Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Groups by Organizational Role.... ......... II Average (Mean) Percent of Board or Staff Members in Tenure Groups by Organizational Role.. ............. 12 Average (Mean) Percent of Board or Staff Members in Age Groups by Organizational Role.... ................... .................... 12 ......... 13 Average (Mean) Percent of Board or Staff Members in Certain Demographic Groups by Organizational Role............. Percent of Respondents Indicating the Foundation's M ission Statement or Grantmaking Guidelines Target Serving Each Population ........................... 13 Percent of Respondents Indicating the Foundation's Mission Statement or Grantmaking Guidelines Target Serving Each Population by Foundation Type .......... 14 Percent of Respondents Indicating the Foundation's Mission Statement or Grantmaking Guidelines Target Serving Each Population by Gmntmaking Last Year and Foundation Assets ....................... .......................... .......................... .. ......................................... 15 Percent of Respondents Indicating the Foundation's Mission Statement or Grantmaking Guidelines Target Serving Each Population by Region'.. .. 16 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Female ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Male..................... .................... ...... 22 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Hispanic/ Latina Females. .. ................................. 23 ...................... ..................................................... .................................. 23 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Hispanic/Latino Males Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Arab/Arab American Females.... .. ......... 24 .. ......................................... 24 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Arab/Arab American Males.... .. ....... 25 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Black/African American Females.... Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Black/African American Males ....................................................................................................... 25 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Asian/Asian American Females ... .. .................. 26 ................ 26 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Asian/Asian American Males Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Females ....................... ...27 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Males .............. ............ . 27 ........... 28 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Native American/Alaska Native Females ........... 28 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Native American/Alaska Native Males ....................... .. ..... 29 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are White Females. ...................... ................... .. .................. 29 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are White Males 2 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Females of Two or More Races................ .... 30 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Males ofTwo or More Races ......................................................................................................... 30 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Do Not Speak English as Their First Language..... . 31 ................ 31 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have a Disability Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Live Outside of Michigan....................................................... ................................................. 32 ....................... .................. 32 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Live Outside the United States.. Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have Served the Foundation for Less than One Year ............ 33 ....................... ......... 33 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have Served the Foundation for 1-2 Years .................. 34 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have Served the Foundation for 3-4 Years. .................... ............. 34 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have Served the Foundation for 5-10 Years ..... 35 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have Served the Foundation for 10-20 Years ......................................................................... 35 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have Served the Foundation for 0ver 20 Years Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Less than 30 Years Old ...... 36 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Arc 30-39 Years Old. .......... 36 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Arc 40-49 Years Old ............................................................................................................................... 37 .................. 37 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are 50-59 Years Old ........................................ 38 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are 60-69 Years Old ...................... .... 38 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are 70 or More Years Old ...................... .................. 39 Percent of Total Population in RaciaVEthnic Groups by Region �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Executive Summary As part of the Council of Michigan Foundations' (CMF's) Transforming Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative, the Community Research Institute at the Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University surveyed Michigan foundations to quantify the demographics of organized philanthropy's staffs and boards. In response to an increasing emphasis on diversity by many in the philanthropic sector, the purpose of this study was to provide a baseline of the demographic characteristics of Michigan foundations which may be used to monitor changing demographics o f the sector change over time. Approximately 650 foundations were mailed invitations to participate in the survey~ eighty-nine foun dations (13.7% response rate) from across the state of Michigan responded. Leadership The survey asked a series of questions specifically about the demographics of the Board Chair and the CEO of each foundation. Wide age ranges comprised both leadership roles- respondents reported having Chairs from 35 to 92 years old and CEOs from 32 to 92 years old (average ages were 62 and 56, respectively). Tenure was similarly broad; Chairs had served on their boards anywhere from one to 51 years, while CEOs had held their positions zero to 32 years (14 and 10 years average, respectively). Approximately nine of every ten Board Chairs and C EOs from respondent foundations were White. There was no representation of Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders or Native Americans/Alaska Natives among responding foundations' leadership. There was more racial diversity among Board Chairs and CEOs in southern parts of Michigan than in northern parts of the state, and there was greater racial diversity among younger and less tenured CEOs. Board and Staff Participating foundations had a total of I ,007 board members (an average of II per organization). Foundations reported employing 93 individuals at the Vice President level or higher (not including CEOs), averaging one per organization. Below the Vice President level, respondents indicated employing 566 full time and 89 part time employees (an avemge of six and one per foundation, respectively). The data show that, on average, women made up 40% of board members. In contrast, the average staff was predominately female, especially below the vice president level. There is low minority representation among executive foundation staff(2.4% Hispanic/Latino/Latina and 6.3% Black/African American, on average) and trustees (I. I% Hispanic/Latino!Latina and 8.0% Black/African American, on average). The ethnic/racial composition of full time staff below the Vice President level is notably similar to that of the population of the state of Michigan. Board members were, on average, older than staff members, and executives were older than non-executive full time staff. Part time staff members below the vice president level had proportionally more younger and older staff members than other employee groups (perhaps a result of employment of individuals new to the workforce and those transitioning into retirement). Policy and Grantmaking Organizations often develop policies which directly affect the ir internal demographics or dictate the target demographics of their stakeholders, clients, or beneficiaries. One-quarter of respondents indicated having specific goals, policies, or guidelines regarding staff diversity, while 43% of foundations had policies on board diversity and 20% had executive diversity guidelines. Eighteen percent of participants stated that their foundations' missions led to all of their grants serving specific demographic populations, while 54% indicated that some grants served specific populations and 28% had no demographic target. When asked which populations their grantmaking guidelines or mission statements specifically targeted, participants responded with a variety of answers-the most regularly cited of these was youth and children (37%). A larger percentage of foundations with relatively small or large endowments and grantmaking amounts targeted their grantmaking at specific demographic groups than medium-sized foundations. 4 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results About This Report The Council of Michig an Foundations (CMF) approached the C ommunity Research Institute (CRI) at the Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University to undertake research and evaluation associated with CMF's Transforming Michigan Philanthropy through Divers ity and Inclus ion Initiative. Several specific elements make u p the body of the research, including: a survey of Michigan foundations to quantify the demographics of organized philanthropy's staffs and boards, a s urvey ofCMF's staff and board regarding their attitudes and perceptions of diversity, tracking of C MF's exte rnal activities surrounding diversity, tracking of recognition o f CMF as a leader in d iversity, and a review ofCMF's policies to determine how integral diversity and inclusion are t hereto. This report presents findings from the first component of this research. In a sector where diversity is increasingly emphas ized, it is critical to understand how diverse organized philanthropy currently is . The purpose of this study was to provide a snapshot of the demographic characteristics of Michigan foundation boards and staff. These data can be used as a base line to see if demog raphics of the sector change over time. Methodology The survey instrument (see Appendix I) was des igned to meet C MF's data requirements as well as to align with national surveys (such as the Foundation Center's work in California). The instrument was presented as an online PD F form. Approximately 650 foundations were mailed invitations to participate in the survey; the c-riteria used to detem1ine which foundations were to be invited were: Included : E xcluded: All family foundations in Michigan with a ssets of$1 million or Community foundation affiliates. more. Community foundations w hich are not CMF members. All independent and corporate foundations. Corporate giving programs. All community foundations which are CMF members. Community foundation and public foundation donor advised funds. The representative receiv ing the le tter was informed that the survey required knowledge of the demographics of the foundation 's board and staff and was asked to pass the invitation to someone with access to such data, if the recipient did not. Participants were g iven the option to ti ll out the survey and submit it electronically or return it by mail. Data collection was conducted between May 2008 and October 2008, and represents respondent assessments of foundation board and staff composition at that time. Staff followed a protocol for follow ing up with nonresponding foundations via te lephone and e-mail in order to maximize the response rate and ensure representation of foundations of varied s ize, type, a nd geography. Because survey participation was not based on a randomized sample, results of th is sn1dy should not be directly generalized to the entire population of foundations statewide. C haracteristics o f responding foundations are included in the tables in the section entitled "Characteristics of Partic ipating Foundations," as well as in the deta iled presentation of data, in o rder to allow readers to assess the extent to which findings may reflect their experience of particular aspects of Michiga n's organized philanthropic sector. Survey data were analyzed using SPSS and Microsoft Excel. For the portions of the survey in which respondents are asked to provide the number of board and staff members fitting each criterion, it was noted that many fields were left blank. Upon inspection of these blanks, it was detennined that most o f these blanks represented zeroes (i.e. the participant left the field blank because there were no board or staff members fitting that demog raphic description). Therefore, these blanks were imputed to be zero during data clean-up. Leav ing those fields blank in analysis (computing averages) would have unrealistically inflated all other answers. Imputing zeroes create more realistic averages . �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Overview of Findings Characteristics of Participating Foundations Eighty-nine foundations (13.7% response rate) from across the state of Michigan participated in the Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey. Over a quarter of respondents were located in southeast Michigan. Many different types of foundations participated in the survey, the majority being community or family foundations (35% and 26% respectively). Participating foundations made over one billion dollars in g rants last year, with a median annual grantmaking amoun t of $650,000. Respondents covered the fu ll spectrum of sizes, and their total reported assets equaled nearly $ 18 billion (median asset value was approximately $ 12 million). Leadership Respondents reported having Board Chairs from 35 to 92 years old and CEOs from 32 to 92 years old (average ages were 62 and 56, respectively). Chairs had served on their boards anywhere from one to 5 1 years, while CEOs had held their positions zero to 32 years ( 14 and 10 years average, respectively). Over one-third ofCEOs of respondent foundations were hired from within the organization, while 22% were working in the nonprofit sector, 17% were in the private sector, 14% came from another foundation, and I0% were recruited from some other source. One in every three Board Chairs of responding foundation was female, and none of the Chairs were Hispanic or Latina/a. No Board Chairs or CEOs were Arab or Arab American. Approximately nine of every ten Board Chairs and CEOs from respondent foundations were White . There was no representation of Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders or Native Americans/Alaska Natives among responding foundations' leadership. The leadership of all responding family foundations was White. There was more racial diversity among Board Chairs and CEOs in southern parts o f Michigan than in northern parts o f the state. There was greater racial diversity among younger and less tenured CEOs. This may suggest that foundations are moving toward more diverse leadership. Board and Staff Member Demographics Participating foundations had a total of 1,007 board members (an average of II per organization). Foundations reported employing 93 indiv iduals at the Vice President level or higher (not including CEOs, discussed above), ave raging one per organization. Below the Vice President level, respondents indicated employing 566 full time and 89 part time employees (an average of six and one per foundation, respectively). The data show that, on average, women made up 40% of board members. In contrast, the average staff was predominately female, especially below the vice president level. There is low minority representation among executive foundation staff(2.4% Hispanic/ Latino/Latina and 6.3% Black/African American, on average) and trustees {I. !% Hispanic/Latino/Latina and 8.0% Black/African American, on average). The ethnic/racial composition of full time staff below the Vice President level is remarkably similar to that of the population of the state of Michigan. Board members and executive staff tended to have more years of service than staff membe rs below the vice president level. Board members were, on average, older than staff members, and executives were older than non-executive full time staff. Part time staff members below the vice president level had proportionally more younger and older staff members than other employee groups {perhaps a result of employment of indiv iduals new to the workforce and those transitioning into retirement). 6 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Policies and Grantmaking One-quarter of respondents indicated having specific goals, policies, or guidelines regarding staff diversity, while 4 3% of foundations had polic ies on board diversity and 20% had executive diversity guidelines. Eighteen percent of participants stated that their foundations' missions led to all of their grants serving specific demographic populations, while 54% indicated that some grants served specific populations and 28% had no demographic target. When asked which populations their grantmaking guidelines or mission statements specifically targeted, participants responded with a variety of answers- the most regularly cited of these was youth and children (37%). A larger percentage of foundat ions with relatively s mall or large endowments and grantmaking amounts targeted their grantmaking at specific demographic groups than medium-sized foundations. Characteristics of Participating Foundations Eighty-nine foundations (1 3.7% response rate) from across the state of Michigan participated in the Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey. Over a quarter of respondents were located in southeast Michigan. Number of Foundations Participating by Geographic Region· of Main Office Location Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Michigan 5 Bay a nd Thumb Area 6 West Michigan Central Michigan 14 6 Southeast Michigan 6 23 South Central Michigan 14 Southwest Michigan 15 Many different types of foundations participated in the survey, the majority being community or family foundations (35% and 26% respectively). Number of Foundations Participating by Foundation Type Number of Foundations Participating by Grantmaking Geography Participating foundations made over one billion dollars in grants last year, with a median annual grantmaking amount of $650,000. Respondents covered the full spectrum of sizes, and their total reported assets equaled nearly S 18 billion (median asset value was approximately $12 million). Number of Foundations Participating by Amount Spent on Grantmaking in the Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000$649,999 22 $650,000$3,249,999 20 21 $3,250,000 or more 22 Number of Foundations Participating by Total Assets �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Leadership Participants reported a w ide range of sources from w hich CEOs were recruited. Over one-third ofCEOs of respondent foundations were hired from with in the organization, while 22% were working in the nonprofit sector, 17%> were in the private sector, 14% came from another foundation, and I Oo/o were recruited from some other source. The survey asked a series of questions specifically about the demographics of the Board Chair and the CEO of each foundation. Wide age ranges comprised both leadership roles-respondents reported having Chairs from 35 to 92 years old and CEOs from 32 to 92 years old (average ages were 62 and 56, respectively). Tenure was similarly broad; Chairs had served on their boards anywhere from one to 51 years, while CEOs had held their positions zero to 32 years ( 14 and 10 years average, respectively). Some participating foundations reported that their Chair or CEO has a d isability. Several respondents noted having leaders who are nonnative English speakers. Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO Disability Status Does Not Have a Disability I Board Chair I CEO 96.5 98.7 Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO by First Language Has a Disability 3.5 1.3 A Language Other Than English is the First Language I Board Chair I CEO English is the First Language 3.5 7.4 96.5 92.6 One in every three Board Chairs of responding foundation was female. None of the Chairs were Hispanic or Latino/a, No Board Chairs or CEOs were Arab or Arab American. Racial Composition of Foundation Leadership This survey asked separate racial and ethnic questions, as do many surveys and censuses, because of the distinction between race and ethnicity . Both race and ethnicity have strong cultural and social associations, and there is often an overlap between the two. Race can be thought o f as the combined physical expression of certain genes which detennine one's skin tone, facial features, hair type, or other characteristics, while ethnic ity is one's self-identified cultural affiliation. Approximately nine of every ten Board Chairs and CEOs from respondent foundations were White. There was no representation of Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders or Native Americans/A laska Natives among responding foundations' leadership. The racial composition of leadership varied across foundation type, size, and location (see the tables below). The leadership of all responding family foundations was White. There was more racial diversity among Board Chairs and CEOs in southern parts of Michigan than in northern parts of the state. Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO Race Black/African American I Board Chair I CEO 9.1 4 .9 Asian/Asian American 0.0 2.4 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 Native American/Alaska Native 0.0 0.0 White Other Two or More Races 89.8 91 .5 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO Race by Foundation Type : .. Black/African American Asian/Asian American White Other • Black/African American Asian/Asian American White Other Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation t Other 12.5 0.0 84.4 3. 1 12.5 0.0 87.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 94.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 20.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO Race by Grantmaking Last Year and Foundation Assets 9 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO Race by Geographic Region· Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Black/African American 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 17.4 7.7 Asian/Asian American 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.9 100.0 82.6 92.3 80.0 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 Black/African American 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 Asian/Asian American 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 White 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.9 100.0 82.6 92.9 92.9 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 : ... • Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 13.3 There was g reater racial diversity among yo unger and less tenured CEOs . This may suggest that fo undatio ns are mo ving toward more diverse leadership. Percent Distribution of Board Chair and CEO Race by Age and Tenure of Board Chair and CEO .,. : . Black/African American Asian/Asian American White Other • Black/African American Asian/Asian American White Other 50 Years Old and Under 51-65 Years Old Over 65 Years Old 5 Years and Under 6-10 Years 11 -20 Years 2 1 Years and Over 7.7 0.0 92.3 14.6 0.0 85.4 3.4 0.0 96.6 25.0 0.0 75.0 10.0 0.0 86.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.3 0.0 94.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 8.0 4.5 0.0 6.3 6.7 5.0 0.0 8.0 80.0 0.0 95.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 87.5 3.3 90.0 5.0 90.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Board and Staff Member Demographics Participating foundations had a total of I ,007 board members (an average of II per organization). Foundations reported employing 93 individuals at the Vice President level or higher (not including CEOs, discussed above), averaging one per organization. Below the Vice President level, respondents indicated employing 566 full time and 89 part time employees (an average of six and one per foundation, respectively). Percentages of board and staff members fa lling into various demographic groups are based upon the total number provided by the respondent. Participants' responses providing demographic information about their board and staff members did not necessarily add up to the total number of board and staff members they provided. Therefore the sum of percentages of board and staff members in racial/ethnic groups (presented in the table below) does not equal 100%. The data show that, on average, women made up 40% of board members. In contrast, the average staff was predominate ly female, especially below the v ice president level. There is low minority representation among executive foundation staff(2.4% Hispanic/Latino/ Latina and 6 .3% Black/African American, on avemge) and trustees (1.1% Hispanic!Latino/Latina and 8.0% Black/African American, on average). Demographic composition of foundations varied by foundation type, grantmaking, assets, and region (please see Appendix II for a detailed analysis of board and staff member demographics by these factors). The ethnic/racial composition of full time staff below the Vice President level is remarkably similar to that of the population of the state of Michigan (as a point of reference, Appendix Ill provides raciaVethnic data from the 2000 United States Census for Michigan and the geographic regions used in this report). Average (Mean) Percent of Board or Staff Members in Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Groups by Organizational Role Percent Female Percent Hispanic/Latina Female Percent Arab/Arab American Female Percent Black/African American Female Percent Asian/Asian American Female Percent Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander Female Percent Native American/ Alaska Native Female Percent White (nonHispanic) Female Percent Two or More Races Female Full Time Part Time Staff Below Vice President 88.9 Staff Below Board 40.3 Staff Vice President or Hiqher 62.9 President 79.2 0.4 2.4 2.6 0.0 Full Time Part Time Staff Below Vice President 10.1 Staff Below Board 60.3 Staff Vice President or Hiqher 33.9 President 10.4 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 Vice 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.1 4 .0 5.2 12.1 2.3 0.2 0.7 0.6 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 32.5 50.5 68.9 73.7 0.4 0.6 2.1 2.1 II Percent Male Percent Hispanic/Latino Male Percent Arab/Arab American Male Percent Black/African American Male Percent Asian/Asian American Male Percent Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander Male Percent Native American/ Alaska Native Male Percent White (nonHispanic) Male Percent Two or More Races Male Vice 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.1 2.3 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.6 25.1 7.9 7.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Perhaps intuitively, board members and executive staff tended to have more years of service than staff members below the vice president level. Average (Mean) Percent of Board or Staff Members in Tenure Groups by Organizational Role Full Time Staff Below Vice President 12.1 Part Time Staff Below Vice President 15.7 Percent at the Foundation for 1-2 Years 14.5 Staff Vice President or Hiqher 3.6 12.7 15.4 15.7 Percent at the Foundation for 3-4 Years 10.5 13.4 15.4 11.9 28.6 Board 11.1 Percent at the Foundation for Less Than 1 Year Percent at the Foundation for 5-10 Years 33.1 40.0 28.3 Percent at the Foundation for 11-20 Years 20.9 15.4 16.5 7.0 Percent at the Foundation for More Than 20 Years 10.2 6.0 6.5 2.1 Board members were, on average, older than staff members, and executives were o lder th~m non executive full time staff. Part time staff members below the vice president level had proportionally more younger and older staff members than other employee groups (perhaps a result of employment of individuals new to the workforce and those transitioning into retirement). Average (Mean) Percent of Board or Staff Members in Age Groups by Organizational Role Board 3.2 Percent Less Than 30 Years Old Staff Vice President or Higher 0.6 Full Time Staff Below Vice President 9.4 Part Time Staff Below Vice President 12.2 10.6 Percent 30-39 Years Old 6.3 15.4 16.1 Percent 40-49 Years Old 14.9 21.8 24.8 12.9 Percent 50-59 Old 29.2 35.9 39.0 26.2 Percent 60-69 Years Old 24.4 11.4 3.9 17.3 Percent 70 Or More Years Old 12.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 12 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board or Staff Members in Certain Demographic Groups by Organizational Role Board 0.7 1.3 13.8 0.5 Percent Who Are Non-native English Speakers Percent with a Disability Percent Living Outside Michigan Percent Living Outside US Staff Vice President or HiQher 1.0 0.0 3.6 0.3 Full Time Staff Below Vice President Part Time Staff Below Vice President 0.5 0.2 4.3 0.7 0.3 0.8 4.2 0.0 Policies and Grantmaking Organizations often develop pol icies which directly affect their internal demographics or dictate the target demographics of their stakeholders, clients, or beneficiaries. One-quarter of respondents indicated having specific goals, policies, or guidelines regarding staff diversity, while 43% of foundations had policies o n board diversity and 20% had executive diversity guidelines. Eighteen percent of participants stated that their foundations' missions led to all of their grants serving specific demographic populations, while 54% indicated that some grants served specific populations and 28% had no demographic target. When asked which populations their grantmak ing guidelines o r miss ion state ments specifically targeted, participants responded w ith a variety of answers-the most regularly cited of these was youth and children (37%). Percent of Respondents Indicating the Foundation's Mission Statement or Grantmaking Guidelines Target Serving Each Population 37.1 27.0 18.0 13.6 13.6 6.8 6.8 5.7 4.5 3.4 3.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 21.3 Youth/Children Eccnomically Disadvantaged Populations Senior Citizens/Aging Populations People with Disabilities Women/Girls Black/African American Populations Hispanic/Latina/Latina Populations Native American/Alaska Native Populations Arab/Arab American Populations Asian/Asian American Populations Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Populations Gay/Lesbian/Bisexuai/Transgender Populations lmmiQrant Communities People of Specific Faiths/Religions Other "At Risk" Populations (e.g., Homeless, etc.) 13 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Percent of Respondents Indicating the Foundation's Mission Statement or Grantmaking Guidelines Target Serving Each Population by Foundation Type Youth/Children Economically Disadvantaged Populations Senior Citizens/Aging Populations People with Disabilities Women/Girls Black/African American Populations Hispanic/Latinoll atina Populations Native American/Alaska Native Populations Arab/Arab American Populations Asian/Asian American Populations Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Populations Gayll esbian/Bisexuai/Transgender Populations lmmiqrant Communities People of Specific FaithsiReligions Other "At Risk" Populations (e.g., Homeless. etc.) Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation' 37.5 25.0 28.1 12.9 19.4 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 37.5 25.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 25.0 25.0 12.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 47.8 39.1 17.4 8.7 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 4.3 26.1 16.7 11 .1 0.0 5.6 5.6 11.1 11 .1 16.7 11 .1 11 .1 11 .1 5.6 0.0 0.0 11.1 33.3 66.7 33.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 66.7 14 Other 60.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results A larger percentage of foundations with relatively s mall or large endowments and g rantmaking amounts targeted the ir grantmaking at specific demographic groups than medium-sized foundations. Percent of Respondents Indicating the Foundation's Mission Statement or Grantmaking Guidelines Target Serving Each Population by Grantmaking Last Year and Foundation Assets Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than Youth/Children Economically Disadvantaged Populations Senior Citizens/Aging Populations People with Disabilities Women/Girls Black/African American Populations Hispanic/Latina/Latina Populations Native American/Alaska Native Populations Arab/Arab American Populations Asian/Asian American Populations Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Populations Gay/Lesbian/Bisexualffransgender Populations Immigrant Communities People of Specific Faiths/ReliQions Other "At Risk" Populations (e.g., Homeless, etc.) $150,000 45.5 40.9 18.2 18.2 18.2 4.5 4.5 9.1 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 13.6 Foundat1on Assets $150,000$649,999 $650,000$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more 20.0 5.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 59.1 45.5 18.2 18.2 22.7 18.2 18.2 9.1 13.6 9.1 9.1 4.5 9.1 9.1 45.5 15 $3,750,000 $3,750,000$11,999,999 $12,000,000$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more 40.0 45.0 20.0 15.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 28.6 4.8 14.3 14.3 9.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 14.3 19.0 23.8 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 19.0 55.0 35.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 35.0 Less than �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Percent of Respondents Indicating the Foundation's Mission Statement or Grantmaking Guidelines Target Serving Each Population by Region· Youth/Children Economically Disadvantaged Populations Senior Citizens/Aging Populations People with Disabilities Women/Girls Black/African American Populations Hispanic/Latino/Latina Populations Native American/Alaska Native Populations Arab/Arab American Populations Asian/Asian American Populations Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Populations Gay/Lesbian/Bisexuai/Transgender Populations lmmiqrant Communities People of Specific Faiths/Religions Other "At Risk" Populations (e.g., Homeless, etc.) Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 West 35.7 28.6 14.3 21.4 21.4 14.3 14.3 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 Central 83.3 33.3 66.7 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 Southeast 34.8 34.8 21 .7 17.4 13.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 4.3 4 .3 4.3 4 .3 4.3 34 .8 South Central 50.0 35.7 7.1 14.3 14.3 7.1 7.1 7.1 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 Southwest 33.3 26.7 13.3 0.0 14.3 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 26.7 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey May2008 The Council of Michigan Founclau.ons anlllhe Commumty R..,.,Oldl Imtuote (CRl) at !be JollllK!D Ctnlu for Phllanlhropy •• Grand Valley Sra1e. Uoinnity lu1-e p;annl!l-.clto study !be demogr.aplllc make-up of ).ltchigan'• foundauoru' beards mil l!:lllploy~~- The IO.PJCoffollDdallon demographics bai b@come anmcl'tuaog 1ocu.s o1plll!lalllllrop:ic rts.Mch. The foundatioo Ceatu b.as .miliat«< apiton proJeciiO llllJlfO\"e foundatioo d.tm.ogr.aplllc ruearctL The- Ne;~· Yorlc R.~giowl As~ocia1i011 o!GoranllllaUn ud l\orlht"Jil Cilifomu Gn.n.lxwlkers .l!t illllloog lla regional usoc~tioos 11131 ate ~lnady Ul\"OII-ed io lhls sype of nudy. The ~llcl!ll.82ll $rudy wtll ~dd anomer impor13Jll 13ye:r to lhlllne1vly f!metgmg body of demo~hl.c reselrcll. 1m OddltiOII tO this pnmuy f<><US o f demosral'ln<S. 2 llt1ef Sf<IIOtl 01 !be ..lid o f lht ''''''" )" $Hia CO 11•10 0 preli.muw)• uMtiSI~lldaiol! of drt'at1ty polociu tild j)HCI>CU. Pleue tllt•u Mom~ol 10 oomp le~ llbl ~w-.·~y eel sub!i!it it 1o CEU. P'liu~.p~I•Oi1 1.\ oomplelely \'OIWU:lijl. 11M ~"Y (jiiUiiOll may be slapped. Ooly CRJ '"'11 ba,·e acce.. to mda,~d!uol wb1<h "'all be lctpl s lnctly coofideotiol. All r"'ulls \\;U be teported wlhe "!!&"•!•~- No n.ames be rqxmecl. Your compl"b"" oflhis im.ph.es your coos...,llo p.. tic•.p•le. '"II '"'J>01l'-6· •=-er To pilticapole ,g lh.e $ur\'")', plt;ne do oo.. of!be CoLiow,gg: fill-out lbJ• Corm 011 )'<>W: comJ>l!l..r. yn•" • copy !or )'OW :~4> &do ~~mil ll ~lecuow.c!!U)' l'iU-outiW$ C<nm ort. )"OIIr computer, J>l'l.lll 11, aDd KCd 11 10 CIU w lbe mall. P11111t t:hi~ io:n:u, lillu 0\ll by i;),Dd, ;u~d sead alto CIU 1rt. tbe cwil Yourp.ru:tictpat>on wt.ll btlp us 1.0 get a mort rcunptdlensi\'t oodottstan.dlilg orMiclllgao's folllldilt;oo.s. l"lea.sco <hr«t ooy que.nons ro. DaliCI B !@c~~)' lteseu<h CoorC110.11or CCliDJiluoily ~areh In.stiMe Jollllsoo Center for .Pbilaollu'op y Gr:utd Vall~• Su.te UGi\."trSil)' Gr:md RApids, Ml ~9~Q.l bt rskJcU'ltrrru t"u 616.331.6692. .~ "C r::::: Q) c. c. <( �P!l'ca~~ 1'~<11 fill om ncb S;@Citon ll~ ~ple;el}' a.s possible: t'f:IDembertbt :myqne>tiomma'j" be aldppednn'll r@~a a:r~ oon.fiMnl!illl O.!!r; Joyud~lioll D~t~ I. Wlui i.~ 1h~ fowtdatio:c.'& !lame? ~'..1. wlul.lhi. £..lJ i> <:pli"""~ it~"""' li&ol, CIIJ ,..;u not b...· !h.! tb. ~~b.u ""''"'""""' WKI mq· <aD..-t it •coin. t.f·..., ~ 1t> =....,. ~..,. """" 6. Whieh oftlle lbl!oi'iw g be~! ~=ibes 1hf' fut>m4ati~m? (' Comnnmity feun.:bl:ioo (' Cotpom~ f-oun&lti~. (' Public fou!lOOtioo (' 011J.a (ple:r.;e 5peocity) (' h mil.y f-oundation 00 Pn.M: Tl\·o: iB:ond and SrnftDnra FeN d!H ~IC'CUQD, pt~Me 1!Ac~"''et' UCb q'JCIIiOil,wid! fot!l nwniloen !he r~,·ui!Dl.bc:Jr C.OITC\p<!!Ddl ~ we D'l!mm otbwrc! mcmb;en. who lit lhe quali(t!!'il m@ll!t=eci w the q{).@attoc.; th-e •econd oom!3jX'IIltl91o tbe ll.twl'toet O'fpaid sll:lfl attl!Je V 1.et! Pre>icJent !enI or a.oo~·~ (""doldi'ng the CEO); the lrutd ron ''' l"""tl" to dte "u"'l'"''' "f full d ....... P"I.!IOI:<fl' belo\11 ;1>.,. v;.,.............., ,.., •• j , tlae r....ll, <CO'l:rcs.pood~ lo llle ll.lllll~r of p~1·1 lim~. p<~id s.~~fflbclow lbe "ihcc Pn:st.;kul le \'e]. Plo:-i~s~ ruler a munber w each ofUJe four bo!';e~ for eaclL questieo. Slaff(I!P& p,,., "'"" F~llfimg ~iglr~''· mcciJldillg Srnff (bl!lmi' S retf f tlM'Iow l tl1o:CEO) I:P lni•!J r'P r....~JJ �P•ur Trr<>: B onocl! • n d S:t111ft D"tm (om•tl11ned) St!Jff(VP& !Jig!JI.<'; II'JidYm•tt: ll•eCEO) 1:5. How 111!1riy1:oi:<:trd/~[aff:m~m~ lh~ out~ide oftlte UnJt~il S:m~7 16. Holl.- l!ll.3n)' boordlst3ffmo?U~t>n~ !h.-we aen•ed t>ll: lhe S.-l Oyen.-. More tbo 10 yeon 17. How l!ll!l.tl)" bo&di~atrmem"l>e..s :lit i:Dto eaeb. ohll<' fo!Jow·tg_~ A:!i<>' r~·? L,..• !han 3() j y....,...l JO-l9-y... rs 70 or mM~ yu;·~ F111I f'jmm ParlJfmw SiqQ"r'beiO"' Sr.,fflbi/qw r'l' lll'l-~) Yi' bwr..l) �:k:oi· Etlwlcity: A••b Hentn~: -~lllc (" FaiHtle (" i Hi~;p;awtii.:thllO l.olinil (' Nm Hi~pzlieiutnw.•uiul.i. r Aiah·'Arab Am..no<tll (" N..t Ami>1Arab Am.,n~ao. Raee (J'Il'>l•e clt..d: ~u ll1Lt "fl'l)'). r I I :B:Illo~:JclA!fi.:':m !Ummmn MJj!Dh\mo Am~mn11 Narin Hawaii!IJl,~cl:fJ:~ Iala.tllll!r r NI!IT'C" J.mcri.un 'Ah5Jm N~tiYC: r r Othn (please 6p<oerlj;) While (n~cHi1<pii!Ue} ~------------------------------------------ Doe. idle IH>nrd eha~noa hi!,..," d"""billt)·'!' (" i."e• Do)t;:l; w bn.1rd d!.ti>pMtoo ·~ak: Eilgfu:lus hi!tlhic!. fillr ang>lJI!~" ("' s.,,._ (" "Fenoir Ethw<:ity: r An~b l'lo:rir~:sc (" Anbo'Ar~b Ra~ r 2-o\o (" ·N'O MoL. HJ.p.:uu<' L o..,II.O<L aric.J Am..nltlln r N'§.f Hh p.I;C.f!:-.tLl!lic..:!ILaU:J:iD. (" No1 A~<i!. 1A~"b Aru.n;-~g 0 N (plme cllo;,d! :ill tll3.t :J.WI;'i: r r r I Do~ r l"~~ w ErL,.,Io:;Am<lln Am.,ri., A>imlruimAm..-ic-an Nan;\~ !H.awAJJAniJ>.:~l'Jftr ·~lo.ndH' N'ali••e A-•ianiAia,sk.o,.N~r.iv"' r liVlme (n~--Hispwc) , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Othu (p~•1<: 'l>"='!'lfy) CEO !Pl:e&i.dent'Encutin DlreciCO! .b.Jn·e a di.sa1!ilicy'.' li)...,. ibc CEO 'Pu:si~""t..:~ Om.:tor •P""Ir Ea~l,.;h., h...-lb... f•n i l•u~g..• (" Yu (" No. r (' N" 't"n ("' W ltlllll tb!: Ol]g:UllzQ1JOII r .:wolher falllllilric:ll (" a <lOIIJifOfif llt'!;""'Zohon r ~ ~-p:rofil .;!t!'!!'lil:nJIO!;I (" otlll!f'(pl~a!e ;p.;ctf)·) .-------------------------------- �In ~ifott~ ~o add to rhe national lli'IOOato!lll dill~ ofme gr.t!ltmiling ;ectnt'e •~ti;"irie-s.. CRI 11M the Coll!ldl of MichigM r oundaticns would Eke ~o ;~~<!: • fi>~>· ~~io"" >'lx>ut Midnp<~ W"'ciin>l<~r<' ~>:itt"'! dh'!r<ily po!id"" 0<1d ~~c~;.,.,,_ ,..,,..,"Cy, th<:$~ qL1eUiro> ~n: \"Oolunl~l:)'. ""d o'lny qn.elitlon oay lie ol'ippcd. .~ "0.7iti!i lh,. •~•i of tho INc 22 DOe"> Ole DJfOiml!.llhOIJ h11\•e 5peci E'LC goals':! JICI1:i.ele'5 os ~tldeirnes ae~;'!Jt1iug5o'l;;affdit ers~t)'.,. 23. Dec·• tl>" orgamzullon han •P"<•ifL< ~ oal.>.. p<>.li~u. c:r ~die h:nH r~gonlwll! u.ewti';·o .toM dr;-.n; tty? r Ko r No 24 Iii di~ O>Sllitiutlou'~ m.iJSion •l>li!mtut 01 g:tilltw.ilk:ic€1 Sllid~bll~i, wbjf:b c.f!!i.i: /ollo\\oia~ ?Of!t11uioru:. if ;lll)', ;i;i;, a:.e;;ti.on~d u key OOD>IItm.o•r.. thot '1110 rQflllWoll'Cilllll1l> to"""~ t],...,.,gh 11• domc>IK (US) g. ontmio'luog~ r r r r r r r Hl~p1!mc 1.amtl.O'Lmn~ Arab1Aral!l Antmc-J.!l Blult/AfH"'sil .!tifu!oli"'~d A>Lan' A>J.Ia Amr:nco.a. Nmtit·~ How.aiinn.Pu:itl~ hLsc.M l\'otjt·~ ~.k>ft~Alo<b N~ti\'~ \liome:u•gala l'"' Gli~· L-.~bim I~i~e~uall'!n!l'.;;.M~(Iu r P~l· ..-,th iLsabcliti.s P·c~lt o:h:pcdfic wtllouellll'IOII'I r r E<=<>"'-'<'>11,- cfuadnuUJ;"'d r Y!ll'Utb"!<bil!il!cn I Seru.or cttt:nn> 11g.m~· population> r r r N ~'!lllt~CMWnillll.fiH O.br "•I mt:" ji<IJ>tllat nms (.: ~ , 1..,....,1= •k ) Otbe>: ~wo~Jttplue group (ple:l~~ specify) 25. So~ fult!l~a!io:~~.<, t!tf~H ~ltfl['. to ~~('ill~ de-mc~:t.p.h.il' pepul:1otioo~. F'Mo1'1!i;u., Efil:!ltn11iliiug:i~ Mt targol!to!d ro ~pi!i"i:li:r jlOplll.:lti.Olli. \Vhii<li of tll~ ~Uowi..g i&t.tl~ f<» you, fow«lui.m? I Our w an i011 In&. ia all or our goaci~ l:l!n::ing spKific clewoppp!l:ic pofUheiacJ r Our rutssi<>o .. ..& 1o "'"'~ofour gt';mls 50YIDg' sp«:ifi< d.,IDOgrapru< popul ati ..... (" Our ru.f~t!Olle.ad's t.o 11otn!' cf Out" ~~·ants se.nin_g specifk detllOgruphie pcpufa1infl5. Th:mkyon vuy mueb fm· you r p :mli:l'ipation i n ;tftis impm·t:m t shuly. iE'.lea~e j)fWA C~l' fM }'6111rf>N:Crtl~ l-tac m~ •tld 'CI! ~o ~u.bmit lbi!·!illt'\'ej" tO CRI iii I~ iii:Wl !Sli.mld be surt to:> prillla copy. as th-ey .o:.ay W.;·e, diif itttlti•s >Db1t:u1Wlg dmc.tucally. Prin1.Fo.rm �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Appendix II: Break-down of Foundation Board and Staff Demographics Board/Staff Gender, Race, and Ethnicity by Foundation Type, Grantmaking, Assets, and Region Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Female Who Are Male I ,...,, I I and Full T1me H1gher Exclud1ng the CEO) Staff (Below VP Level) 41.5 31.5 45.3 34.3 33.2 49.1 69.5 100.0 37.8 60.8 100.0 65.3 92.4 100.0 88.8 83.2 100.0 70.1 97.8 75.0 46.4 77.8 0.0 56.3 39.4 42.0 40.3 40.7 63.3 57.1 75.0 62.3 83.7 93.3 93.6 84.7 77.3 80.6 80.4 76.9 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more 37.1 42.4 39.8 42.6 58.1 70.0 75.0 65.2 83.4 97.6 92.9 82.9 75.0 82.5 77.5 78.4 Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 47.6 40.6 46.9 40.7 42.2 34.5 44.1 39.4 100.0 92.9 91.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 47.1 70.8 84.7 I I ,.,,, I Part T1me I and Full T 1me H1gher Excludmg the CEO) Staff (Below VP Level) 58.2 68.5 54.7 66.9 78.9 50.9 30.5 50.0 40.0 39.2 0.0 26.4 7.6 0.0 11.2 16.8 0.0 19.4 2.2 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 43.8 60.4 58.0 59.5 62.0 32.5 28.6 25.0 37.7 9.2 6.7 6.3 15.3 13.6 8.3 12.5 7.7 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more 62.8 57.6 61.7 58.5 37.1 20.0 25.0 34.8 8.3 2.4 7.1 17.0 15.0 7.5 9.2 12.5 Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 52.4 59.4 53.1 59.0 57.8 67.9 55.9 60.6 0.0 7.1 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.1 29.2 4.2 Staff (Below VP Level) I ~----~-- ~------Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation 1 Other Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets Less than $3,750,000 Board Board Foundat1on Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundationt Other Part T1me Staff (Below VP Level) Grantmak1ng Last Year 0.0 66.9 75.0 57.6 65.2 57.8 98.3 86.7 88.0 90.7 74.7 22 Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets Less than $3,750,000 0.0 33.1 25.0 39.4 34.8 42.2 1.7 13.3 8.2 9.3 25.0 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Hispanic/Latina Females I I "~~, I Board and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Hispanic/Latino Males I Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) ~----~..mill Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation' Other Board Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) I Foundat1on Type 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 6.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.4 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 6.7 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Yea r Assets Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) ~..a..m..a 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more I and Higher Excluding the CEO) I '""" I Assets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 - 10.7 0.0 0.6 0.1 1.8 23 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 2.8 �Michigan Organized Phi lanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Arab/Arab American Females I I "~~, I Board and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Arab/Arab American Males I Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) I and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) I '""" I Board Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) I ~--~~-- ~--~~ Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation' Other Foundat1on Type 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 .1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $ 150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more 0.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Yea r Assets Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 24 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Black/African American Females I I "~~, I Board and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Black/African American Males I Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) ~-.-...a~-. Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation' Other 3.4 7.8 0.6 4.9 3.7 13.6 1.9 50.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 13.9 9.0 9.7 2.9 27.7 0.0 10.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 3.8 1.3 5.1 5.8 12.5 0.0 3.7 5.0 29.5 0.0 10.5 10.7 0.0 0.0 4.5 3.8 4.1 2.5 3.5 6.7 14.3 0.0 4.8 5.8 34.4 0.0 10.6 11.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.7 7.2 4.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 8.3 1.4 .... Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) 3.5 5.3 0.0 6.0 0.0 19.3 Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) I -. 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.6 0.0 1.2 5.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 5.2 0.8 2.8 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 3.2 0.0 2.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 5.7 0.8 2.8 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.8 0.0 2.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.7 8.3 3.1 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.4 Grantmak1ng Last Yea r Assets Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest Board ~-. Foundat1on Type Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more I and Higher Excluding the CEO) I '""" I Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 2.5 - 4.0 0.0 32.7 9.3 6.2 25 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 4.3 3.1 3.5 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Asian/Asian American Females I I "~~, I Board and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Asian/Asian American Males I Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) ~--~..0-Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation' Other 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.4 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 o.o Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) Board Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) I ~-----Foundat1on Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 o.o o.o I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Yea r Assets -... I and Higher Excluding the CEO) I '""" I Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 1 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.8 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 .-. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 �Michigan Organized Phi lanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Males Are Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Females I I "~~, I Board and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) I Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) ~..m..m..a-. Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation' Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 Board Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) I ~--..mill-- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other 0.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Yea r Assets Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) Foundat1on Type 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $ 150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more I and Higher Excluding the CEO) I '""" I Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 27 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Native American/Alaska Native Males Are Native American/Alaska Native Females I I "~~, I Board and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) I Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) ~..m..m~..a Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation' Other Board Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) I Foundat1on Type 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 4 .5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Yea r Assets Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) ~..mil..mil..mill 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more I and Higher Excluding the CEO) I '""" I Assets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 28 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are White Females I I "~~, I Board and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are White Males I Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) ~----..ml-Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation' Other 35.6 18.6 38.4 29.2 29.5 21 .2 62.1 50.0 37.8 53.2 0.0 34.7 77.6 73.6 84.5 53.3 100.0 30.2 89.1 75.0 32.1 77.8 100.0 40.6 28.8 40.8 31.0 30.5 42.5 57.1 60.2 49.2 19.6 93.3 82.9 66.7 72.7 80.6 68.8 73.1 32.1 36.5 29.9 33.4 34.3 60.0 56.0 57.5 22.9 83.3 75.7 68.6 70.0 82.5 67.5 72.7 33.3 40.6 36.5 28.9 38.8 24.8 39.3 33.6 100.0 50.0 91.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 75.0 100.0 47.1 62.5 83.3 Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) Board Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) I ~-----Foundat1on Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other 48.6 49.2 43.4 58.1 45.6 21.9 17.5 50.0 28.9 37.1 0.0 23.6 6.6 12.5 9.4 8.5 0.0 7.6 2.2 0.0 25.0 11.1 0.0 6.3 48.4 53.5 48.4 41 .1 20.0 14.3 25.0 27.8 3.7 6.7 8.6 10.0 4 .5 19.4 1.8 7.7 50.9 52.0 43.3 47.3 22.9 10.0 25.0 30.6 4.3 0.0 9.9 11.2 5.0 17.5 0.0 11.4 46.7 57.0 53.1 42.3 53.9 45.1 46.3 49.7 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 29.2 2.8 Grantmak1ng Last Yea r Assets Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest I and Higher Excluding the CEO) I '""" I Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets 0.0 52.6 75.0 34.1 51.0 52.2 - 83.7 86.7 42.6 80.7 65.1 29 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 33.1 25.0 30.3 15.7 28.3 1.0 13.3 9.1 5.7 17.3 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Females of Two or More Races I I "~~, I Board and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Males of Two or More Races Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) ~--~---Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 20.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.2 16.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more I Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Board ~ Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other I and Higher Excluding the CEO) I_. Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) Grantmak1ng Last Yea r Assets Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest ... ... "~ ,, I I Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 30 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Board/Staff Non-native English Speaking, Disability Status, and Place of Residence by Foundation Type, Grantmaking, Assets, and Region Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Do Not Speak English as Their First Language I and Full T 1me H1gher Excluding the CEO) Staff (Below VP Level) I ""'"' I Board I Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have a Disability I ""'"' I Part T 1me Staff (Below VP Level) I Board and Full T 1me H1gher Excluding the CEO) Staff (Below VP Level) I Part T1me Staff (Below VP Level) ~~--~-- ~-~---. Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation Other Foundat1on Type 0.6 2.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation Other 0.3 0.0 0.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 Less than $150,000 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Less than $3,750,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.3 0.2 0.9 1.5 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more $3,750,000-$11,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more 1.0 2.1 0.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.1 1.6 2.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.2 3.1 0.0 1.2 0.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 Assets Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Year Assets Less than $3,750,000 2.4 2.1 0.0 1.3 1.5 0.0 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Live Outside of Michigan and H1gher Full T1me Staff (Below VP Level) I ""'" I Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Live Outside the United States Part T1me Staff (Below VP Level) I ~~~-.Exclud~ng Board Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 the CEO) 2.1 6.3 30.9 15.7 0.0 23.3 0.0 0.0 6 .7 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 10.5 0.0 3.4 2.2 0.0 14.3 5.6 0.0 0.0 15.5 6.1 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 .1 1.7 0.0 3.1 7.6 13.6 0.0 0.0 3.8 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more 17.1 2.4 2.7 30.2 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 10.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 10.6 15.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 12.4 3.3 11.1 4.5 11.1 11.7 22.9 23.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 5.6 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more ~!) Assets Less than $3,750,000 and H1gher I I Full T1me Staff (Below VP Level) I ""'" I Excl ud ~ng Board the CEO) Part T1me Staff (Below VP Level) I ~-----...mil Foundation T ype Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation' Other Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $1!'io.ooo.$n49.999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 6.2 18.4 32 Less than $3,750,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 2.9 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Board/Staff Tenure by Foundation Type, Grantmaking, Assets, and Region Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have Served the Foundation for Less than One Year I I '"'N' I Board and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) I Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) ~-.....u..m~-. Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation Other 13.2 10.7 8.9 10.8 14.1 7.1 1.4 0.0 11 .1 0.0 0.0 5.6 4.8 0.0 14.9 26.1 25.0 15.2 24.1 0.0 7.1 16.7 0.0 0.0 14.8 6.1 9.3 15.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 7.6 19.1 6.7 12.1 12.4 12.1 22.2 15.7 15.4 14.4 7.9 10.4 15.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 8.7 17.5 4.8 14.4 13.5 10.0 13.3 21 .3 18.2 14.0 13.2 9.5 5.9 12.3 8.8 11 .8 16.9 0.0 14.3 8.3 10.0 11.1 100.0 12.5 10.0 0.0 41 .7 11.1 Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest Time ,.~,, I FullStaff I and Higher Excluding the CEO) (Below VP Level) Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) 19.5 20.9 7.7 8.6 12.3 26.2 7.4 0.0 33.3 12.2 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 15.5 22.9 0.0 15.3 21.3 0.0 0.0 16.7 50.0 15.6 12.1 15.2 12.6 20.4 0.0 0.0 11.1 26.2 3.0 6.7 20.5 19.4 7.6 5.6 14.5 32.1 13.1 13.6 15.6 20.1 0.0 0.0 14.3 22.8 1.1 7.9 20.4 2 1.1 5.0 8.3 21.0 18.6 18.2 20.9 5.9 15.3 18.1 11.8 13.6 17.1 0.0 7.1 20.8 45.0 11.1 0.0 39.6 10.0 9.6 0.0 15.3 I I ~-----Board Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation Other Grantmak1nq Last Year Assets Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have Served the Foundation for 1-2 Years Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 19.5 11 .9 21 .6 33 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 7.1 25.0 0.0 26.2 20.6 15.6 13.3 9.1 13.8 27.6 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have Served the Foundation for 3-4 Years I I "~~, I Board and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have Served the Foundation for 5-10 Years "~ ,, I I Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) I Board I and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) I ~-------- ~------Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other Foundation Type 18.6 13.3 0.5 3.2 33.4 12.1 17.6 0.0 2.2 10.7 100.0 9.0 25.6 0.0 15.5 12.2 0.0 8.2 15.5 25.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 3.1 Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other 39.8 41.8 25.6 28.8 23.4 32.9 59.2 50.0 13.3 40.6 0.0 17.4 30.7 16.7 41.4 25.4 50.0 12.6 30.4 25.0 35.7 11.1 50.0 43.8 36.5 30.1 35.0 32.9 52.5 28.6 39.8 35.0 21.2 6.7 33.1 33.3 25.8 33.3 16.1 35.9 34.4 33.2 33.7 33.3 45.7 30.0 61.9 32.3 24.7 16.7 22.9 37.6 35.0 23.3 16.7 40.2 33.9 30.8 18.6 34.4 42.8 40.1 35.9 21.2 0.0 0.0 29.2 25.0 44.4 0.0 27.1 60.0 23.1 8.3 36.1 Grantmak1ng Last Yea r 10.2 9.9 15.0 9.0 0.0 28.6 16.7 12.4 19.3 33.3 5.7 18.9 27.3 5.6 7.3 9.0 9.3 12.9 14.1 9.0 0.0 30.0 3.6 15.9 17.7 15.9 15.6 17.1 20.0 15.0 6.0 11.7 13.6 17.8 7.1 5.2 13.5 14.2 11.0 5.5 50.0 14.3 8.3 20.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 20.0 26.9 0.0 1.4 Assets Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets 0.0 7.1 25.0 9.8 19.0 6.2 - 24.1 0.0 15.4 16.6 12.6 34 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 56.9 50.0 47.0 7.6 52.3 30.0 53.3 18.2 35.3 31.3 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have Served the Foundation for Over 20 Years Average {Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Have Served the Foundation for 10-20 Years I I "~~, I Board and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) I Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) I Board I "~ ,, I and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) I ~-.till------ ~---.-Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation 1 Other 8.0 10.3 33.3 32.5 28.8 17.7 8.7 100.0 0.0 24.3 0.0 25.7 15.2 19.4 15.1 12.5 25.0 24.7 4 .3 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 9.4 Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation' Other 17.6 26.8 15.6 22.3 27.5 0.0 23.1 12.6 15.1 46.7 16.3 8.2 0.0 11.1 17.0 0.0 Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more 19.8 21.8 14.6 20.3 31.4 10.0 11.9 11.4 15.2 35.7 16.7 10.4 0.0 10.0 15.0 1.1 20.3 5.4 31.3 23.6 9.4 17.5 23.6 28.0 0.0 7.1 33.3 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 12.5 Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more 0.7 7.2 22.6 15.0 0.0 7.0 5.7 0.0 6.7 6.4 0.0 9.0 0.4 41.7 4.8 1.7 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 12.0 12.9 6.6 2.5 0.0 2.8 12.5 2.4 0.0 3.6 7.5 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 7.9 11 .5 12.9 7.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 16.0 2.8 0.0 3.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 11.9 11 .0 15.3 3.9 7.9 5.6 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Year Assets Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) Assets 0.0 15.2 0.0 25.8 24.3 7.7 19.6 0.0 23.7 4.6 15.7 35 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 10.0 0.0 5.3 2.9 10.7 10.7 33.3 4.0 2.5 5.0 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Board/Staff Age by Foundation Type, Grantmaking, Assets, and Region Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are Less than 30 Years Old I I "~N' I Board and H1gher Exclud1ng the CEO) Full T1me Staff (Below VP Level) I Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are 30-39 Years Old Part T1me Staff (Below VP Level) ~-..a-.-. Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other I Part T1me Staff (Below VP Level) 19.3 5.6 23.8 15.7 0.0 13.1 17.7 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 12.5 8.4 9.9 4.9 3.1 12.5 14.3 8.3 22.4 13.3 13.3 12.0 21.7 12.1 0.0 17.1 10.3 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more 11.4 7.2 6.1 2.4 0.0 20.0 25.0 18.5 15.5 5.6 14.0 23.1 10.0 3.3 16.0 12.1 Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 4.4 5.8 4.2 6.1 8.3 3.3 10.2 8.5 50.0 0.0 16.7 20.0 11 .1 50.0 10.4 10.0 0.0 16.7 11.1 17.4 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.9 Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation' Other 4.8 3.9 0.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 9.2 6.7 8.6 11 .7 9.1 0.0 17.0 19.2 Less than $150,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more 3.8 3.9 2.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 6.0 4.8 17.8 6.3 10.0 0.0 20.0 17.0 Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 9.0 2.8 7.6 2.3 4.4 1.3 1.0 4.6 0.0 14.3 16.7 25.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 11.5 16.7 20.8 Grantmak1ng Last Year Assets Less than $3,750,000 Exclud1ng the CEO) I 22.7 0.0 22.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 11.0 5.6 2.6 15.9 0.0 6.9 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more I Full T1me Staff (Below VP Level) 7.4 6.1 9.9 1.4 2.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 Grantmak1ng Last Year Board I ~-.---Foundation Type 3.9 1.3 4.2 0.9 1.5 5.7 Less than $150,000 and ,.~,, H1gher $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 22.6 0.0 6.0 1.1 7.4 36 Less than $3,750,000 0.0 17.9 50.0 2.3 11.9 11.1 10.7 20.0 13.5 18.9 25.8 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are 40-49 Years Old I and H1gher Exclud1ng the CEO) Full T1me Staff (Below VP Level) I """ I Board Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are 50-59 Years Old Part T1me Staff (Below VP Level) I I I "" I Board and H1gher (W Exclud1ng the CEO) Full T1me Staff (Below VP Level) I ~--~---- ~----~ Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation 1 17.4 26.5 13.8 8.4 8.6 12.2 24.1 100.0 0.0 12.8 100.0 17.4 20.3 5.6 33.7 21.9 100.0 28.4 11 .7 0.0 14.3 22.2 0.0 12.5 18.1 15.5 12.5 12.8 25.0 0.0 38.9 21.4 37.3 0.0 22.0 28.3 18.2 11 .1 8.6 15.4 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more 17.7 15.6 14.0 11 .1 28.6 20.0 17.9 26.2 31.6 28.6 14.7 28.3 30.0 0.0 5.5 21 .6 Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 17.5 7.6 15.4 9.9 44.3 12.8 15.2 12.3 0.0 35.7 0.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 12.5 16.7 26.4 Other Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150.000-$649.999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets Less than $3,750,000 Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Part T1me Staff (Below VP Level) 30.9 39.8 20.5 29.3 44.4 31.0 51.3 50.0 22.2 25.2 0.0 18.1 39.8 83.3 9.5 41.0 50.0 15.4 30.7 0.0 14.3 50.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 27.4 34.4 32.0 35.0 42.9 30.6 38.6 2 1.8 73.3 46.7 28.2 18.2 55.6 24.3 16.7 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more 22.9 30.8 29.4 31.1 40.0 30.0 32.1 33.4 25.4 72.2 42.4 3 1.5 10.0 60.0 22.7 19.7 Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 32.4 28.7 26.4 30.1 26.1 29.4 34.4 24.4 0.0 50.0 41.7 20.0 33.3 50.0 45.8 60.0 15.4 0.0 16.7 Other Grantmak1ng Last Year 0.0 21.4 25.0 18.9 35.7 20.4 25.9 40.0 29.3 22.2 23.1 37 Less than $150,000 $150.000-$649.999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more Assets Less than $3,750,000 0.0 41.4 25.0 35.6 35.2 49.3 39.5 40.0 37.3 38.2 37.7 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are 60-69 Years Old I I "~~, I Board and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) Average (Mean) Percent of Board/Staff Members Who Are 70 or More Years Old Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) ~-----.-Foundation Type Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 Other Board I and Higher Excluding the CEO) Full Time Staff (Below VP Level) I Part Time Staff (Below VP Level) ~--~~ Foundation Type 3.3 0.0 11.1 26.3 0.0 31 .3 2.6 0.0 1.8 3.7 0.0 17.9 13.8 75.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 28.1 Community Foundation Corporate Foundation Family Foundation Independent Foundation Public Foundation1 21 .0 21 .5 27.1 24.7 2.5 0.0 10.2 16.1 1.1 0.0 5.1 5.2 6.1 11.1 15.2 26.9 Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more 23.4 18.4 27.0 27.9 2.9 0.0 9.5 20.2 1.3 0.0 4.4 6.2 0.0 16.7 13.3 23.9 27.2 18.1 19.3 39.8 11.2 24.4 14.3 28.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 25.0 30.0 11.5 33.3 6.9 Other 7.4 8.3 13.6 25.7 3.3 4 .2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 7.2 17.9 11 .1 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 10.6 13.3 11.9 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.1 9.4 4.6 10.4 11.5 5.7 11.5 21.2 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.4 Grantmak1ng Last Yea r Assets Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest I 23.6 20.5 28.9 18.6 13.3 42.9 Grantmak1ng Last Year Less than $150,000 $150,000-$649,999 $650,000-$3,249,999 $3,250,000 or more "~ ,, I I Assets 0.0 22.9 0.0 10.6 2.9 19.2 - 1.3 0.0 6.4 4.0 7.1 38 Less than $3,750,000 $3,750,000-$11 ,999,999 $12,000,000-$69,999,999 $70,000,000 or more Reg1on Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb West Central Southeast South Central Southwest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 �Michigan Organized Philanthropy Demographic Survey Results Appendix Ill: Racial/Ethnic Composition of Michigan Percent of Total Population in Racial/Ethnic Groups by Region American Indian/ Alaska Native Hispanic/ Latino/ Latina Black/ African American Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Bay and Thumb Area West Central 0.8 1.3 3.9 5.7 2.3 1.8 0.6 6.2 6.1 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 1.0 0.4 91.2 95.7 87.8 1.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 Southeast South Central 2.9 3.2 24.1 11.1 2.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 Southwest 3.4 9.5 1.1 0.0 Region ,. Asian/ Asian American Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander ; I White .. Two or More Races Other I . 85.0 93.6 0. 1 0.0 0. 1 0.1 0. 1 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.4 68.3 81.0 0.1 0. 1 1.9 1.8 0.5 83.7 0.1 1.6 Source: 2000 Census, United States Census Bureau For the purposes of this report, Upper Peninsula refers to the entire Upper Peninsula of Michigan; Northern Lower Michigan refers to A leona, Alpena, Antrim, Benzie, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Clare, Crawford, Emmet, Gladwin, Grand Tmverse, losco, Kalkaska, L;:tke, Leelanau, Manistee, Mason, Missaukee, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Osceola, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, and Wexford Counties; Bay and Thumb Area refers to Arenac, Bay, Huron, Lapeer, Saginaw, St. Clair, Sanilac, and Tuscola Counties; West Michigan refers to Allegan, Barry, Ionia, Kent, Mecosta, Montcalm, M uskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, and Ottawa Counties; Cemral Michigan refers to Clinton, Gratiot, Isabella, Midland, and Shiawassee Counties; Southeast Michigan refers to Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, and Wayne Counties; South Central Michigan refers to Eaton, Genessee, Hillsdale, Ingham, Jackson, Lenawee, Livingston, and Washtenaw Counties; and Southwest Michigan refers to Berrien, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Kalamazoo, St. Joseph, and Van Buren Counties. t Because of the small number of public foundations, the reader is cautioned not to treat data related to public foundations in this report as representative of all Michigan public foundations. 39 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Organized-Philanthropy-Demographic-Survey-Results Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book organized philanthropy demographic survey results Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book organized philanthropy demographic survey results. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50765 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/1f6db4e65cd2c9d74d745f26350c77a3.pdf 41ffb07b2cfe893b0274ce59b87ae980 PDF Text Text CMF Councilof Michi an Foun1ations Serving grantmakers. Advancing gMng. February 15, 2009 Memo to: Melanie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board of Trustees From: Rob Collier and Team Re: Plan of Work for Fiscal Year Starting Aprill, 2009 We look forward to presenting the Plan of Work for the Fiscal Year starting April 1, 2009. In the front pocket of the Board book you w ill find the complete plan of work. We are not proposing any changes in the Goals, Objectives, Strategies or ongoing activities. A new addition to the Plan is the Acronym and Term Reference List. At the Board Meeting, we will offer a power point that highlights both: key accomplishments in the current fiscal year, and proposed new activities. The proposed new activities are summarized in the following document that ends with the Acronym and Term Reference List. In addition, you will find in recognition of our newest team member Kimberly Burton, a summary of the new Corporate Philanthropy Plan she has developed with counsel from Caroline Chambers, Vice Chair for Corporate Philanthropy. The organization of the Plan of Work has been greatly aided by the counsel of the Executive Committee. Therefore we propose the follow ing Resolution for consideration and action: RESOLVED that the Plan of Work for 2009-10 be approved as recommended by the Executive Committee. �Strengthening Service to Members -With input from a new Education Team and results from an analysis of topics covered and participation levels in programs del ivered from, 2006-2008, CMF will be establishing new internal systems to increase value, participation and impact of its educational programs and increase use of the knowledge resources available on the CMF website. Components will include: standard pricing, common evaluation tools and procedures, data tracking and increased market research as well as specific targets for increased participation including of currently unengaged members. To serve members during the current economic downturn, CMF is increasing on-line program delivery. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Plan-of-Work Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book plan of work Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book plan of work. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50766 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/049f6847dfc3ea03984f540ed6645421.pdf aa725cbd34fac920926ef0cd03a1a035 PDF Text Text CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Serving grcmtmakers. Advancing giving. February 15, 2009 Memo to: Melanie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board ofTrustees From: Rob Collier, President Re: President's Report This Report compliments the highlights of activities in the December 30, 2008 President's Update I sent to you. If you would like another copy ofthat Update, please let Sue know. This Report includes three subsections that we will feature in our Board meeting. Section I is the Update on the 371h Annual Conference being held in conjunction with the Annual Conference of Independent Sector. Section II is the Update on the Diversity and Inclusion Initiative. Section III is the Update on Public Policy activities. This Report from Dana Linnane, our Public Policy Fellow, highlights the many activities that have already occurred in January and February in response to the economic crisis faced by Michigan, the nation and world. I. ADVOCACY- To advocate for a legislative and regulatory environment conducive to philanthropy Activities under this Goal are included in the Government Relations Committee Report. Briefings for members in January and February have featured how to deal with opportunities presented by legislation passed in Lansing: the Michigan Promise Zone legislation, and the Low Profit Limited Liability Corporation, and in February- passage of the Federal Stimulus Package by Washington. II. EDUCATE- To educate foundation trustees and staff about effective practice In addition to the many activities highlighted in the Public Policy Report and the summary points offered in my December Update, the following are noted: November 13, 2008- Family Philanthropy Teleconference -"The Connected Giving Family" Dana Marcus, Executive Director of the Frieda C. Fox Family Foundation in Los Gatos, California, presented simple online techniques such as online video, family intranets, Skype and virtual site visits, that help distant family members stay in touch, engage a new generation of givers and promote grantees. Three hands-on regional family foundation meetings focused on web-based technology are being planned for September 15, 22, and 29, in Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, and Midland. December 13, 2008- Family Philanthropy Teleconference-"Perpetuity is a Long Time" Richard Moore, President of the Weaver Foundation in Greensboro, North Carolina, and Daniel Bader, President of the Helen Bader Foundation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, discussed why a growing number of family foundations are sun- setting due to fami ly and program reasons, and outlined why it is important for every foundation board to have a conversation about perpetuity. January 8, 2009- Family Philanthropy Teleconference -"Creative Grantmaking During Tough Economic Times" Kathleen P. Enright, President and CEO ofGrantmakers for Effective Organizations, and Dave Beckwith, Executive Director of the Needmor Fund in Toledo, Ohio, shared ideas and examples of what family foundations can do to most effectively support their grantees in these challenging times.. �President's Report February 2009 Page 2 Feb. 3, I 0, 17 and 24 - Storytelling: Tapping the Power of Narrative led by Andy Goodman. 25 senior foundation staff from Michigan and the nation are participating in the four-webinar training series sponsored by CMF, Donors Forum of Illinois, Indiana Grantmakers Alliance and the Communications Network. This is the third in a series of highly rated webinars CMF is sponsoring with Goodman, one of the leading practitioners in the field. February 12, 2009- Family Philanthropy Teleconference- "Family Members on Call: Being Both Family and Staff' Elizabeth Tauck Walters, Tauck Foundation, and Sarah Russell Cavanaugh, The Russell Family Foundation, discussed the dynamics and challenges that result from a foundation having staff members who also are family members. Upcoming March 2-4, 2009 - Symposium on Diversity and Inclusion in Philanthropy: The Michigan Experience: Nearly 90 individuals including teams from CMF member foundations, CMF trustees and staff, youth grantmakers and national experts will participate in the CMF-DPP co-sponsored Symposium at the Westin Book Cadillac Hotel in Detroit. This fi rst major event of the Transforming Michigan Philanthropy Through Diversity and Inclusion Initiative was designed with input from national experts and CMF members who participated in interviews and submitted organizational policies for review and with guidance from an eight-member Advisory Group of senior staff from participating foundations . March 12, 2009- Family Philanthropy Teleconference-"Building Trust to Promote Community Collaboration" This teleconference will feature the Ruth Mott Foundation's work with the Public Conversations Project to build relationships and trust so Flint community members-from diverse groups-can work constructively on shared concerns. April 2009 - Essential Skills and Strategies for New Grantmakers (ESS) - In response to cuts in members' travel and professional development budgets, CMF will offer members a repackaged ESS institute delivered through a series ofwebinars followed by a one-day on-site component to ensure that those new to Michigan philanthropy are able to meet colleagues and become part of the state's vibrant grantmaker network. Karen Aldridge-Eason, foundation liaison and Tonya Allen, vice president of program, The Skillman Foundation will serve as lead faculty. May 9, 2009-Family Foundations- "The Kirtland ' s Warbler-A Michigan Environmental Success Story" Participants in this one day program will take a morning guided tour to see the warbler in its jack pine habitat near Grayling, MI and learn about the Michigan Habitat Management Program. In the afternoon, there will be a multigenerational service project. May 20, June 2, and June 11, 2009 - Family Foundations- "Investment Toolbox: An Opportunity to Share with Peers and Experts" Three regional workshops-Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, and Saginaw-- will focus on the top ten fami ly foundation investment questions and best practices for managing a family foundation portfolio. Trustees will discuss what they are doing to avoid selling assets in a down market, while continuing to support their grantees, and what the options are for protecting their portfolios. �President's Report February 2009 Page 3 III. INCREASE - To increase organized philanthropy in Michigan As noted n my December Update, efforts have focused on the availability of the IRA Charitable Rollover in 2009 as a giving tool. STRATEGY- To provide programs, resources and technical assistance to build the capacity of community foundations January 20-23, 2009 YAC Advisor Roundtables More than 50 YAC Advisors participated in a series of 4 conference calls to discuss Best Practices and current challenges within their YACs. Content for two of the calls was geared for YAC Advisors in their first year with the YAC, while the other two calls were intended for veteran YAC Advisors looking to take their Y AC to the next level. Participants were able to learn new strategies from their peers and discuss the best ways to empower young people. IV. LEAD- To lead and support collaborative philanthropic responses to critical needs The Public Policy Report in Section ill of the President's Report addresses many of the collaborative responses to critical needs in Michigan. We look forward to having a discussion with our special guests from the State on the Federal Stimulus Package at the Board Meeting. MCFV and community philanthropy The board of trustees ofMCFV (Midwest Community Foundations' Ventures) expanded in late 2008 and early 2009 to include Marissa Manlove, President of the Indiana Grantmakers' Alliance and representatives from the Indiana community foundation field. This brings the total MCFV community foundation outreach in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois and Michigan to 285-more than a third of the community foundations in the United States. MCFV' s Access to Recreation grant initiated public policy activities and statewide meetings in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan in late 2008 and early 2009. Michigan's statewide public policy event brought over 100 individuals from community found ations, parks and recreation associations, DNR and the Michigan Fitness Foundation together to share lessons learned from recreation projects focused on Universal Design and accessibly recreation opportunities. This four state Access to Recreation initiative is funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. This past month, MCFV created a learning community of 12 Regional Associations or Community Foundation Alliances that w ill partner with MCFV to deliver coordinated communications and technical assistance around National Standards compliance andre-compliance. This initiative is funded through support from the C.S. Mott Foundation and an "Idea Lab Grant" from the Council on Foundations. The Michigan Community Foundations Youth Project (MCFYP) Committee MCFYP has partnered with the Michigan Department of Community Health to distribute $25,000 to YACs around the state who have designed and are preparing to implement effective programming to prevent alcohol abuse. Eleven proposals have been approved for events in the spring of 2009. Funds for each of the eleven projects selected will be matched 1 to 1 by the participating YAC. �President's Report February 2009 Page4 Partnering with the Diversity in Philanthropy Project (DPP) While Section Two of this report provides an update on the Diversity and Inclusion Initiative, at the invitation of the Diversity in Philanthropy Project (DPP), CMF is serving as lead partner for a sevenregional association team participating in D5, a one-year project involving philanthropic infrastructure groups in the development of a strategy to advance diversity and inclus ive practice across the sector. The lead group includes COF, Foundation Center, Joint Affinity Groups, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors representing donors and CMF representing regional associations. Policy Works CMF is serving as fiscal agent and co-chair with the Ohio Grantmakers Forum of a multi-year initiative to build the commitment and capacity of regional associations of grantmakers to engage state and federal policymakers. The project is supported by a $100,000 planning grant from the W illiam and Flora Hewlett Foundation. An additional $650,000 is needed to fu lly implement the project as currently designed. Partners are: Northern California Grantmakers, Grantmakers of Western Pennsylvania, Donors Forum of Illinois and New York Regional Association ofGrantmakers. Vicki Rosenberg serves as co-chair. The initiative builds on CMF's recognized leadership for government relations and public policy. Forum- COF Education Alliance. As co-chair of the Forum Grantmaker Education Task Force, Vicki Rosenberg is a lead contributor to the design and development of a comprehensive, coordinated national system of educational services for foundation staff, trustees and individual donors. The system will be built around a conceptual framework that defines what foundation staff, trustees and donors need to know and be able to do; a shared Forum/COF knowledge base of learning resources; and strategic partnerships with leading content and program designers and deliverers such as GrantCraft and The Grantmaking School at the Johnson Center. Diversity, Inclusion and Social Equity In winter 2009/2010, CMF's Public Policy Committee and the Transforming Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion initiative will host the Symposium on Social Equity & Philanthropy in Michigan. The event will examine access and equity to critical social supports such as K-16 education, health care, employment, housing and the arts through data and case studies and at the role of foundations in achieving social equity for Michigan residents. Dana Linnane and Vicki Rosenberg will lead the planning process with an advisory group to be fonned. V. NETWORK- To network Michigan grantmakers with each other and with grantseekers Detroit Area Grantmakers Recent topics have included: "Innovative approaches to sustain non-profits"; "Not just a Financial Crisis -A Confidence Crisis"; and "Community School Strategy: Can It Save Our Failing Schools?" Attendance at each session has exceeded 50 and with new invitation to the Business Contributions Council, (BCC) it is expected to increase. The topic for the March DAG Luncheon will be "Youth Employment." �President's Report February 2009 Page 5 Business Contributions Council (BCC) and Detroit Renaissance CMF Board Chairperson Melonie Colaianne, Corporate Foundation Chairperson, Caroline Chambers and Kimberly Burton, met to initiate an ongoing partnership w ith BCC. The work plan includes: • Establish partnership between CMF and Detroit Renaissance Business Contributions Council by providing resources and staff support. • CMF to invite BCC members to participate in ongoing and new programming opportunities; (DAG, CMF Webinars, Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship) • Expand CMF/BCC membership to include Corporate Foundations from Western and Central Michigan. February 24-25, 2009 MCFV Community Foundations CEO Retreat More than 50 community foundations from Ohio, Michigan and Indiana will gather in Lorain, Ohio while the CMF Board meets. The Retreat will focus on cutting edge topics including: the Great Lakes Economy, building endowments in tough economic times, community impact, and sustaining operations-all critical issues in the current philanthropic environment. In addition, the retreat participants w ill be welcomed to Ohio by Dr. Mark Sniderman, Executive VP & Chief Policy Officer Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and hosted in the evening by Marvin Krislov, President of Oberlin College in the stunning Adam Joseph Lewis Center-named one of the thirty "Milestone Buildings of the 201h Century" by the US Department of Energy. March 24-25, 2009, Program Officer Retreat Program staff from community foundations around the state will gather in Muskegon for the Community Foundation PO R etreat. This annual opportunity for program staff to come together to learn about emerging topics in the field and network with each other is graciously being hosted by the Fremont Area Community Foundation and the Community Foundation for Muskegon County. Session topics at this year's retreat include education reform, sustainability as a strategy for foundations, and emergency community needs. Participants will go on site visits to the GVSU Annis Water Resources Institute and the GVSU Michigan Alternative and Renewable Energy Center, while also attending a reception at the Muskegon Museum of Art. May 2009- The Communications Network-Michigan the only state affiliate of the national Communications Network- will host a spring event at the Fetzer Institute on foundation rebranding and audience research. Susan Trabbucchi, senior program officer for communications at the Fetzer Institute will share the model and results for work being presented to the Institute' s Board at its March 2009 meeting. The meeting will be preceded by the spring Communications & Marketing Advisory Committee meeting. VI. PROMOTE- To promote the role and impact of Michigan foundations and corporate giving programs Michigan Philanthropy Oral History Project (MPOHP) Four more digital recordings were added to the MPOHP collection in November 2008, bringing the total to 28. Participants included: Chuck and Stella Royce; Rob Collier and Dorothy Johnson; Susan Broman and Kate Pew Wolters; and Brenda Hunt and Pete Christ. �President's Report February 2009 Page 6 The online MPOHP archive also launched last fall as part of the Johnson Center online digital archives in the Grand Valley State University library. The recordings have already started being used by scholars, students and others and GVSU is also considering using the recordings as part of their potential Masters in Philanthropy curriculum. MPOHP plans for this year may include editing existing recordings and expanding the collection further, depending on funding. UNIVERSITY LiBIWUES DIGITAL COLLECTIONS S e ar c h resul t s : 28 i t em( s ) for: "con v ersat ionft Image: r '· r 2. r •. r •. A Tit l e: -f44M D escri pti on: o~ th e ~rc d eri o;k S. Uj::~ lo n ~o u n d otio n in :Oa. Jo:c p t C onv er: ::olio n wi t h Qc t;y Up to n - S cby Upto n Stov e r, tru:b:e Sto v er a nd J uli e Fi s h er c ummings M ic hi gan , an d Ju li e Fis he r Cu m m ings, t rus t ee of the Ma x M. an d Ma rjorie S. Fi Fo un detlo n In s outhfi e ld , Michiga n tal Con v er: o ti o n wi t h S n.u;:e ~et:::c:r M i k e G"rgely , Co- Trv ::;t ee o f the ~et:::e < I n : t ib.1t e M e mori ::ol T rv:t , b l k : with Fri ~ a nd N ik e Gerg e ly Bruce Fet zer, T reasurer o f The Fet ze r I ns t it ut e in Ka l a m azo o , M ic hi gan, a nd g n e phe w of Jo hn E. Fetzer, about J oh Conv ersa ti o n wi t h Caro l Gos s a nd Gerald Sm i t h Fri en ds a n d colleagues Caro l Goss, Pres i d ent &. C EO of T h e Sk illman Fo u nd ati Geral d Sm ith, Preside nt & CEO o f Yout hVille D etro it , t alk about t h eir phil a nt hn influe ntes ( R u~s Mavtby , p arents. Archive online at: http://www.gvsu.edu/l ibrary/digitalcollectio ns/index.cfm?id=6Fll 90B3-D9EE-A7E5E723C91F797AF I B8 More project infonnation at: www.michiganfounda tions.org/oralhistorypr oject C arol N o rl ey -Beck in tervi eVIS h er p are nts Ro b ert a nd Sue Mo rl ey a~out b e in g 1 C onv ersa ti o n wi t h C a ro l M~rl e y· Bec:k e n d Ro b ert end .,nd 4 t h gen e rotio n!> invo lved in t h e Morle y fou n d<1tio n , f ounde d in 1 946 in S e Sue M ur l ..y M id ri y ..r r, c r rU Lh e \.co u:::.e :3 <Or rU u r y c r r STRATEGY - Engage in media relations CMF Press Mentions: 36'11 Annual Conference Coverage: "Dan Rather visits Grand Rapids" Grand Rapids Business Journal, October 20, 2008 http://www.grbj .com/GRBJ/Nav/Login.htm? ArticleiD= {B740AAFA-6D88-46C4-A3AA9151365245E5} "Dan Rather draws parallels between Ford's tenure, present political mood at Grand Rapids speech" Grand Rapids Press, October 12, 2008 http://www.mlive.com/grpress/news/index.ssf/2008/ l 0/dan rather draws parallels bet.html "Dan Rather speaks on Michigan's economy, presidential race" WZZM, October 13, 2008 http://www.wzzm 13 .com/newsllocaVstory.aspx?storyid=99924&catid=48 "Dan Rather to open council in Grand Rapids" Holland Sentinel, October 8, 2008 http://www.hollandsentinel.com/news/xl 272966005/Dan-Rather-to-open-council-in-Grand-Rapids �President's Report February 2009 Page 7 "Foundations hope bailout provision boosts giving" West Michigan Business Review, October 16, 2008, Rob Collier quotation http://www.mlive.com/businessreview/westem/index.ssf/2008/ 10/foundations hope bailout provi.html "Foundations target economic development" Business Review West Michigan, November 27, 2008, Rob Collier quotation http://www.mlive.com/businessreview/western/index.ssf/2008/ 11/foundations for the economy.html "Ann Arbor charity victim of alleged Madoff Ponzi scheme" Crain's Detroit Business, December 16, 2008, Rob Coll ier quotation http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/200812I6/FREE/8 I2 I69958/- I "Transforming Michigan We Are In This For The Long Haul!" Michigan Women's Foundation Trillium Newsletter, Fall 2008, Rob Collier OpEd "New data center to offer help to metro Detroit charities" Detroit Free Press, February I, 2009, Rob Collier quotation http://www.freep.com/article/2009020 IINEWS02/9020 I 0423 CMF News Wire Pickup "New IRS Commissioner Voices Support For Foundations & Philanthropic Sector" November 21, 2008, distributed in Council ofNew Jersey Grantmakers, e-news and web site "Need for Mentors Grows- Michigan Mentoring Update" January I5, 2009, distributed to Michigan Community Service Commission listserv http://www.michiganfoundations.org/s cmf/doc.asp?CID=2542&DID=22486 STRATEGY - Provide leadership for coordinated regional/national communications on the sector Philanthropy 3D/Michigan & Midwest- Update Featured in the Winter issue of Memo to Members, the Philanthropy 3D project is in fina l stages of design with implementation set to begin in spring 2009. Funded by a $75,000 grant from The David & Lucille Packard Foundation with additional funding of $15,000 from the Philanthropy Awareness Initiative (PAI), 3D's vision is for influential leaders in Michigan to appreciate and seek partnerships with foundations to improve the quality of life in Michigan. Its goal is to design and test a model for communicating the unique value foundations bring to increasing Michigan's economic competiveness. A $20,000 grant from the Forum of Regional Associations ofGrantmakers will allow for the adaptation of CMF's model in a small and mid-sized regional association. Our partners are Donors Forum of Wisconsin and Indiana Grantmakers Alliance. This spring, CMF will invite members to join a coalition that will collaborate on the development and use of key messages about foundations' unique value in our state. The project team led by Vicki Rosenberg includes Dana Linnane, Becky Noricks and David Bleckley, project evaluator, Community Research Institute. �President's Report February 2009 Page 8 STRATEGY - Publish articles, reports and studies Healthy Youth. Healthy Seniors. Maximizing tobacco settlement funds across Michigan, was produced and distributed to state legislators, administrators and Michigan community foundations. The 12 page white paper showcases how Michigan community foundations partnered w ith state government and engaged citizens and local leaders to improve lives, raise awareness for healthy lifestyles, and increase the quality oflife for seniors and youth in their communities. A copy of the white paper can be foun d in the back pocket of the board book. Additional copies can be downloaded from www.michiganfoundations.org. VII Trustees and Staff News February 1, 2009-Colina Foundation Received COF Critical Impact Award The Colina Foundation was awarded the COF Critical Impact Award for Family Foundations for its work focused on early childhood education. The award was presented at COF's Family Philanthropy Conference in Indianapolis on February 1, 2009. The other recipients were The Hulda and Maurice L. Rothschild Foundation of Chicago, and The Walton Family Foundation of Bentonville, Arkansas. A Michigan chapter of Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP) has been formed Young staff and board members of Michigan foundations have begun learning and networking around the state. Mike Goorhouse, Program Associate for Community Foundations, has been selected to serve as co-chair of the steering committee of this new group. The group's mission is to "strengthen the next generation of Michigan grantmakers, to advance effective social justice philanthropy." Facing Racism Training Kimberly Burton, participated in a two-day workshop entitled " Facing Racism" sponsored by the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce and the Institute for Healing Racism. Goals of the workshop included: A history of how racism came into being in the United States; Gaining an understanding of the pathology of the disease of racism and what constitutes the wounds caused by it; To provide a place where those who have experienced racism and those who have perpetuated it m ay come together to help each other arrive at a new understanding and heal the pain experienced by both; To promote action to eliminate institutional and individual racist behaviors and practices within business and community. All CMF staff have now completed this valuable training, and follow-up activities in 2009 are being planned. Kimberly will use information attained and relationships established to support findings for the TMP Diversity and Inclusion Initiative. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Presidents-Report Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book presidents report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book presidents report. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50767 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/a0c765eb5bb33aa3b7cde6fd72d6011a.pdf 82df4dcc8d891145190722fe3cee1b14 PDF Text Text CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 13, 2008 Amway Grand Hotel, Grand Rapids The Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF) was held in the Pearl Room of the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel on Monday, October 13, 2008, pursuant to written notice duly given. Chairperson Diana R. Sieger called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. Trustees, officers and special guests present in addition to Chairperson Sieger: Susan Broman Melanie Colaianne Caroline Chambers Elizabeth (Libby) Cherin John Colina Robert Collier David Egner Rev. Louis Felton Russ Gabier Allan Gilmour Carol Goss Wesley Maurer, Jr. Russell Mawby Rachel Mraz Carol Paine-McGovern Phillip Peters Thomas Porter David Sebastian Betsy Upton Stover Amanda Van Dusen Christian Velasquez Daniel Wyant Special Guests: Hugo (Ted) Braun, President, Harvey Randall Wickes Foundation Renee Branch, Director Diversity & Inclusive Practices, Council on Foundations Kimberly Burton, Consultant Andrea Cole, Executive Director & CEO, Ethel and James Flinn Foundation Dave Coulter, Executive Director, Michigan AIDS Fund Danah Craft, VP Programs/Constituency Services, Council on Foundations Karen Aldridge-Eason, Office of the Foundation Liaison Brenda Hunt, President & CEO, Battle Creek Community Foundation Dorothy (Dottie) Johnson, Co-Chair, Learning to Give James Kelly, Co-Chair, Learning to Give Wendy Lawson, Chair, Michigan AIDS Fund Olivia (Libby) Maynard, Heron Oaks Foundation & Trustee, Council on Foundations Jennifer Poteat, Trustee, Michigan AIDS Fund Mark Sedway, Philanthropy Awareness Initiative and Sedway Associates Ralph Smith, Board Chair, Council on Foundations & Executive Vice President, Annie E. Casey Fdn Duane Tarnacki, Clark Hill, PLC & CMF Legal Counsel CMF Staff: Sue Cuddington, Executive Assistant to the President David Lindberg, Vice President, Finance & Administration Dana Linnane, Public Policy Fellow Donnell Mersereau, Director, Community Foundations Vicki Rosenberg, Vice President, Education, Communications & External Relations �Board Minutes October 13, 2008 Page 2 Self-introductions were made and Chairperson Sieger welcomed new Board nominees- Andrea Cole, Brenda Hunt and Ted Braun. Rob Collier introduced Kimberly Burton, who will be joining the staff on November 10 as Vice President for Corporate Philanthropy and Director of Diversity and Inclusive P ractices. Sieger introduced special guest, Ralph Smith, Executive Vice President of the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the current Chair of the Council on Foundations (COF). Mr. Smith discussed the open letter of October 10 from the Council on Foundations redefining leadership in philanthropy- a copy of which is attached. Upon motion duly made, supported and unanimously approved, it was RESOLVED that the Council of Michigan Foundations adopts and supports the letter of October 10, 2008 from the Council on Foundations. Mr. Smith noted there is still a significant level of ignorance and misunderstanding about philanthropy. The Council will work with partner organizations like CMF to build a constituency of support and deal with uninformed scrutiny. Mr. Smith invited Renee Branch and Dana Craft from COF to comment. Renee Branch, Director Diversity & Inclusive Practices, noted foundations need to understand why we look the way we do and how can we address perceptions. Danah Craft, Vice P resident of Programs/Constituency Services, commented that they are working smarter & better together and continue to work on forming partnerships to benefit the field. Mr. Smith, Ms. Branch and Ms. Craft left the meeting at 3: 15 p.m. Chair Sieger recessed the Board Meeting to hold the Annual Members' Meeting of the Supporting Organizations of the Council of Michigan Foundations at 3:15 p.m. - the minutes of which are separate from these minutes. Chair Sieger reconvened the CMF Board Meeting at 3:45p.m. and presented the consent items for approval : Upon motion duly made, supported and unanimously approved, it was RESOLVED that the Consent Agenda items be approved : • • • • • • Minutes of May 20, 2008 Board Meeting Minutes of September 11, 2008 Executive Committee Meeting Minutes of October 1, 2008 Executive Committee Meeting o A pproval of Auditors o Delay of Planned Dues Increase Treasurer's R eport with Financials for period ending August 31, 2008 Investment R eport Membership R eport Treasurer's Report/ Year End Audit Treasurer Phil Peters and Dave Lindberg presented the 2008-2007 Audit Report, noting the report was not available for advanced review prior to the May 20, 2008 Board Meeting. �Board Minutes October 13, 2008 Page 3 Upon motion duly made, it was RESOLVED that the March 31,2008 & 2007 Audit Report be accepted as presented and reviewed by the Audit Committee. Governance Committee Committee Chair Carol Goss presented two resolutions of tribute recognizing the leadership of fellow trustees, Lloyd Yeo and Gerald Smith, who both passed away this past year. Upon motion duly made, it was RESOLVED that the CMF Board of Trustees extends its appreciation to the family of Lloyd Yeo in gratitude for his dedicated service as trustee, treasurer, member of the Audit Committee and for his many years of leadership in strengthening and increasing philanthropy in Saginaw and Michigan. And, Upon motion duly made, it was RESOLVED that the CMF Board of Trustees extends its appreciation to the family of Gerald Smith in gratitude for his dedicated service as trustee, co-chair of the 351h Annual Conference, officer of the Michigan AIDS Fund, member of the Public Policy Committee and for his visionary and tireless leadership on behalf of the youth of Detroit as founder of the Detroit Youth Foundation. Committee Chair Carol Goss presented a resolution of appreciation to outgoing Chairperson Sieger for her leadership and commitment serving on the Board of Trustees for nine years. Upon motion duly made, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF) extends it appreciation to Diana Sieger, President of the Grand Rapids Community Foundation, for her nine years of dedicated service as a Trustee of CMF, including: chairing the Community Foundations Committee, supporting the transition of our supporting organization to Midwest Community Foundations' Ventures, leading development of the Cultural Competency Plan and Organizational Analysis, and chairing the Board of Trustees for the two years 2006 to 2008, and we welcome Diana's continued involvement with CMF and advocacy for philanthropy as a member of CMF' s Advisory Cabinet. Chair Goss added her welcome to the three new Trustees for the Class of 20 11 and thanks to those continuing to serve- all elected at the morning's Annual Meeting of the Membership and presented the following resolution. Upon motions duly made, supported and unanimously approved, it was, RESOLVED that the actions of the Committee on the Class of 2011 be accepted, and that the following names were elected by the membership to the Board for a three-year term ending in 2011: • Melonie B. Colaianne, President, MASCO Corporation Foundation, Taylor • David 0. Egner, President and CEO, Hudson-Webber Foundation, Detroit �Board Minutes October 13, 2008 Page 4 • Russell L . Gabier, Secretary/Trustee, Irving S. Gilmore Foundation, Kalamazoo • • Phillip H. Peters, V.P. Administration, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Flint Margaret E. Thompson, Trustee, Harry A. and Margaret D. Towsley Foundation, Midland Christian A. Velasquez, Trustee, Midland Area Community Foundation, Midland Hugo E. (Ted) Braun, Jr., President, Harvey Randall Wickes Foundation, Saginaw Andrea M. Cole, Executive Director & CEO, Ethel and James Flinn Foundation, Detroit Brenda L. Hunt, President and CEO, Battle Creek Community Foundation, Battle Creek • • • • Finally, Ms. Goss presented the recommendations of the Governance Committee for the Officers for the next year. Upon motions duly made, supported and unanimously approved, it was, RESOLVED that the following individuals be elected to the offices as specified for a one-year term effective October 13, 2008. Chairperson - Melonie B. Colaianne, President, MASCO Corporation Foundation Vice Chair Community Foundations - Elizabeth A. Cherin, President, Fremont Community Foundation Vice Chair Family Philanthropy - Betsy Upton Stover, Trustee, FrederickS. Upton Foundation Vice Chair Corporate Philanthropy - Caroline E. Chambers, Comerica Charitable Foundation Secretary - John Colina, Colina Foundation Treasurer- Phillip H. Peters, Vice President- Administration and Secretary, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation President- Robert S. Collier Diversity and Inclusive Initiative Chair Goss introduced Vicki Rosenberg who updated the Board on the first Advisory Committee meeting for the Initiative held in June immediately after a very successful CEO Roundtable facilitated by Mary Ellen Capek, a lead consultant with the Diversity in Philanthropy Project. Ms. Rosenberg noted a Diversity Perceptions Survey will be performed by the Community Research Institute in late October. All Trustees will be asked to complete the 15 minute survey. A Knowledge Symposium Becoming a Diverse & Inclusive Foundation will be held March 2- 4. Chair Goss presented the recommendation of the five principles from the Diversity in Philanthropy Project which support CMF Guiding Principles. Upon motions duly made, supported and unanimously approved, it was RESOLVED that CMF encourage all foundation leaders to embrace the following common principles that �Board Minutes October 13, 2008 Page 5 promote a broad approach to diversity, equity and inclusion as a matter of fairness and effectiveness in our profession by believing in: • Mutual Respect- fundamentally valuing and respecting experiences different from our own, • Freedom and Flexibility- respect for each individual foundation's commitment to address those aspects most germane to its mission, • Knowledge and Creativity- becoming more creative and informed investors • An Intentional Approach -formalizing meaningful goals in our governance and programming • Transparency - regularly reporting progress and lessons learned Government Relations Committee Co-Chair Paine-McGovern presented the updated Legislative Goals Statement for 20082009. She noted progress on the IRA Charitable rollover at the federal level and updates to the Nonprofit Corporation Act by the State Legislature. The Goals Statement has been divided into Action Goals and Ongoing Goals, with opposition to the efforts of the Greenlining Institute on foundation reporting requirements a new action goal adopted by the Board this year. Ms. PaineMcGovern indicated that 2009 will be a significant year on tax policy so encouraged trustees to join committee members at Foundations on the Hill in Washington March 24 & 25. Upon motions duly made, supported and unanimously approved, it was RESOLVED that the Legislative Goals Statement, as attached, be adopted for 2008-09 as recommended by the Government Relations Committee. 361h Annual Conference Conference Co-Chairs Caroline Chambers and Rachel Mraz noted the Achieving Michigan 's Transformation theme has been present throughout the diverse sessions. They encouraged the Board to attend the evening event at the Grand Rapids Art Museum as well as the closing keynote conversation with Judy Collins and Ruby Dee. Public Policy Report Dana Linnane, Public Policy Fellow, shared progress on: the proposed Cultural Data Project of the Arts Affinity Group; a proposed Michigan College Access Network; and noted the overview of the 21st Century Schools Fund provided in the Board Book. President's Report Rob Collier invited Vice Chair Betsy Upton Stover to report on the Family Foundation Retreat held during the Lilac Festival on Mackinac Island. Trustee Tom Porter, who attended as well, suggested a future retreat be videotaped to promote membership and show its value. Collier invited Vicki Rosenberg to provide an update on the Philanthropy SD Initiative supported by the Packard Foundation and involving regional associations in Indiana and Wisconsin with the Philanthropy Awareness Initiative (PAl) as a strong partner. Ms. Rosenberg introduced Mark Sedway from PAl who provided a summary of why regional associations like CMF must take the lead on communications efforts. �Board Minutes October 13, 2008 Page 6 Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Board, Chair Sieger adjourned the meeting at 5:00p.m. for the Annual Board picture. Diana R. Sieger, Chairperson Robert S. Collier, President � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Previous-Board-Minutes Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book previous board minutes Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book previous board minutes. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50768 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/feed2aff14c22c3c5a7ab14ea486f4c3.pdf 9bb4e614efdf517d926d9ce106482f9c PDF Text Text OFFICE OF THE STATE BUDGET FEBRUARY 12, 2009 Fiscal Year 2010 Proposed Revenue Enhancements Proposal Eliminate or modify t ax subsidies, adjust tax rates, and implement other measures to gener ate ongoing revenue in support of higher spending priorities. Combined fiscal year 2010 benefit to the stat e of Michigan is $231.6 million: $166.4 million gen eral fund; and $65.2 million School Aid Fund. Background The fiscal year 2010 budget process examines direct spending as well as spending for tax subsidies, weighing budget expenditures against tax expenditures within available fiscal resources. In addition, changes in current law and tax enforcement practices will enhance general fund and School Aid Fund revenues. The Governor's fiscal year 2010 Executive Budget Recommendation includes the followin g revenue proposals that are intended to be ongoing sources of revenue to address the state's structural budget problem. Proposed Revenue Enhancements ($174.9 million) • Commercial Rental Property A 2002 Michigan Supreme Court decision (WPW Acquisition v City of Troy) barred complete implement ation of 1994 Proposal A legislation regarding property taxation on commercial rental property. That legislation provided that in calculating the cap for determining the taxable value of commercial rental property, both increases and decreases in occupancy would be treated differently from market value changes affecting other types of property. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that an increase in value due to an increase in a commercial rental property's occupancy could not be used to increase the property's taxable value beyond the constitutional assessment cap established by Proposal A. As a r esult of this court decision, commercial rental property taxes are based on occupancy decreases and are not adjusted upward if the property's occupancy rate increases. Legislation is needed to remove commercial rental property from the General Property Tax Act and create a n ew specific tax that allows this property to be treated the way Proposal A intended. Annual impact, beginning for fiscal year 2010, $10.0 million in School Aid Fund revenue. �Proposed Revenue Enhancements Febru ary 12, 2009 Page 2 • "Cybershame"- Publicize Names of Major De linquent Taxpayers The "Cybershame" program would allow the n ames of major delinquent taxpayers to be published. At least 18 states have found that publicizing the names of major delinquent taxpayers encourages taxpayers to pay their taxes on time to avoid bad publicity. The proposal will post on the internet the nam es of taxpayers that are delinquent on over $100,000 in tax liability, but only after the Department of Treasury notifies the taxpayer that their names may be publicized and gives the taxpayer the opportunity to arrange for payment. Legislation is needed to implement the "Cybershame" program. Annual impact, beginning for fiscal year 2010, $5.0 million in general fund revenue. • International and Certain Interstate Communications Certain inter state t elecommunication services are exempt from the u se tax, including toll-free numbers, WATS services, interstate private networks, and international calls. It is not consistent to tax calls made within the state, or between stat es, but not to tax calls made to oth er countries. A call to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan is taxed; a call to Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario is not taxed. Legislation is needed to require the use tax to be paid on t elecommunication services that are placed or received in Michigan and billed to a Michigan service address or phone number. Annual impact, beginning for fiscal year 2010, $14.5 million: $9.7 million in general fund revenue; $4.8 million in School Aid Fund revenue. • Interstate Trucks a nd Trailers The purchase or use of trucks, trailers, and parts is normally subj ect to the sales or use tax. However, the tax does not apply if as little as 10 percent of miles traveled occur outside of Michigan. Subjecting to taxation that portion of the u sage that occurs in Michigan would mean, for example, that if 45% or 50% of miles traveled in Michigan, then 45% or 50% of the sales or use tax would be owed. Legislation is needed to subject that portion of the usage that occurs in Michigan to the sales or use tax. Annual impact, beginning for fiscal year 2010, $21.0 million: $14.0 million in general fund revenue; $7.0 million in School Aid Fund revenue. • Oil and Gas Income Double Deduction Under current law, oil and gas activities in Michigan are taxed under the severance tax and, in return, the income from these activities is not subj ect to Michigan income tax. The Michigan income tax uses th e feder al adjusted gr oss income (AGI) as the starting point. AGI includes the net amount of business income after all business expenses have been subtracted. Since the incom e from oil and gas �Proposed Revenue Enhancements Febru a r y 12, 2009 Page 3 production is not subject to Michigan income tax, the net amount of oil and gas income should be subtracted from the AGI. However, Michigan courts have allowed oil and gas producers to take a different deduction from income. Certain indirect costs, such as depreciation expenses, are allowed as a separate deduction from AGI, creating a double tax advantage for this group of taxpayers. Legislation is needed to eliminate the double deduction. Annual impact, beginning for fiscal year 2010, $4.1 million: $3.1 million in general fund revenue; $1 .0 million in School Aid Fund revenue. • Other Tobacco Products - Double the Tax Rate The current tax rate on other tobacco products (OTP) is 32 percent of the wholesale price- which is significantly lower than th e current tax rate on cigarettes. The cigar ette tax of $2 per pack averages between 80 and 150 percent of the wholesale price on a percentage basis, depending on whether the cigar ettes are a premium or discount brand. This significant tax differential has created an incentive for consumers to substitute tobacco products taxed as OTP for cigarettes. In addition, manufacturers have cr eated new products that share many of the characteristics of cigar ettes (white wrapping paper, filters, and packs of 20) but are sold as "little cigars." These products have a considerable price advantage due to the different tax rates assessed on OTP compared to cigarettes, and it appears these little cigars have experienced increased sales while cigarette sales have declined. Legislation is needed to double the tax rate on OTP. Annual impact, beginning for fiscal year 2010, $45.0 million in general fund revenue. • Personal Exemption - Suspend Indexin g The personal income t ax exemption was increased from $2,100 to $2,400 in 1995 and 1996 and to $2,500 in 1997. In 1998, the personal exemption was increased by $200 plus it began to be indexed to inflation which r esulted in another $100 increase. As a result, the personal exemption was increased to $2,800 for t ax year 1998 and continues to be annually adjusted to inflation. Legislation is needed to suspend the inflation index for tax years 2009 and 2010. Annual impact in fiscal year 2010, $57.0 million; $46.4 million in general fund revenue; $10.6 million in School Aid Fund revenue. (Fiscal year 2011 impact: $65.0 million: $52.9 million in gen eral fund r evenue; $12.1 million in School Aid Fund r evenue.) • Sales Tax Bad Debt Deduction Under current law, a retailer, and after September 30, 2009, a lender , is allowed to deduct the amount of bad debts related to previously reported, taxable r etail sales at the time that these debts become worthless or uncollectible. Legislation is needed to adjust the bad debt deduction to 80% of current value. Annual impact, �Proposed Revenue Enhancements Febru ary 12, 2009 Page 4 beginning for fiscal year 2010, $12 million: $3.2 million in general fund revenue; $8.8 million in School Aid Fund revenue. • Sales Tax Collection Allowance Under current law, a seller is allowed to r etain 0 .75% of the sales and use tax (not to exceed $20,000) if proceeds are remitted by the 12th of the month, or r etain 0.50% of the tax (not to exceed $15,000) if proceeds are remitted from the 13th through th e 20th of th e month. Legislation is needed to adjust the sales tax collection allowance to 80% of current value. Annual impact, beginning for fiscal year 2010, $3.1 million: $0.8 million in general fund revenue; $2.3 million in School Aid Fund revenue. • Tobacco Tax Collection Allowance Under current law, persons licensed to sell tobacco products are allowed to exempt 1.5% of the cigarette tax due, and 1% of the tax due on other tobacco products, to cover their expenses in administering th e tax. Legislation is needed to adjust the tobacco tax collection allowance t o 80% of current value. Annual impact, beginning in fiscal year 2010, $3.2 million: $1.9 million in general fund revenue; $1.3 million in School Aid Fund revenue. Proposed Tax Enforcement ($17.6 million) • Compliance Enforcement - Delinquent Business Tax Accounts The Department of Treasury pursues delinquent tax debts from the business community through its field collection program. More complex business tax accounts involve higher value delinquencies but also require extensive investigative efforts to pursue these accounts. A recent pilot project identified approximately 5% of active businesses are not registered for sales and withholding taxes and are not in compliance with filing returns. Investing $895,000 for 10 FTE positions is needed to expand compliance enforcem ent, resulting in increased tax obligation revenue that would otherwise go uncollected. Annual impact, beginning in fiscal year 2010, $11 .0 million: $7.8 million in general fund revenue; $3.2 million in School Aid Fund revenue. • Income Tax Automation The Departmen t of Treasury manually reviews and corrects approximately 400,000 errors, or 8% of the 5 million income tax returns filed, through its tax processing bureau. This proposal would re-direct 12,000 of the errors to an aut o correction system, allowing staff to manually review and correct additional errors. Investing �Pro posed R evenue Enha n cem ents Februa r y 12, 2009 P age 5 $150,000 for 2 FTE positions is needed to expand reviews of t ax returns, resultin g in increased tax revenue. Annual impact, beginning for fiscal year 201 0, $4.1 million: $3.7 million in general fund revenue; $0.4 million in School Aid Fund revenue. • Use Ta x Audit Letter s to Bus inesses Modeled after a state of California initiative, the Department of Treasury would remind businesses of their potential tax liability under Michigan's Use Tax Act. Letters would be mailed to businesses, asking them to review their recor ds on outof-state purchases for t he past 3 years to determine if additional taxes are owed. Annual impact, beginning in fiscal year 2010, $2.5 million: $1.7 million in general fund revenue; $0.8 million in School Aid Fund revenue. Other Proposed Revenue Enha n cem e n ts • Liquor Revenue Incr eases ($24.1 million) Doubling the Ret a il Licen se Fees Most ret ail liquor license fees have remained unchanged for more th an 30 year s, while the costs of licensing and enforcement activities has increased more th an 270% sin ce October 1976. In addition, th e license itself is a marketable commodity with a high r esale valu e when bough t and sold in the private mark et . Legislation is needed to double the fees paid by retail liquor licensees. Addit ion al revenue will suppor t Michigan Liquor Control Commission regulat ory responsibilities with u nexpended balances deposited to t he state general fund. Annual impact, beginning for fiscal year 2010, $10.4 million in general fund revenue. Exte nded H our P e rmits Under current law, liquor licen sees are prohibited from selling liquor between the hours of 2:00 a.m. an d 7:00 a.m. Legislation is needed to cr eate a new permit to allow liquor sales to be extended by 2 h ours - from 2:00 a.m . t o 4:00 a.m. Additional r evenue will support Michigan Liquor Control Com mission r egulatory responsibilities with unexpended balances deposited to th e stat e gen eral fund. Annual impact, beginning for fiscal year 2010, $4. 6 million in general fund revenue. �Proposed Revenue Enhancements February 12, 2009 Page 6 Extended Sunday Hours Under current law, liquor retail licensees ar e prohibited from selling liquor between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. midnight on Sundays, unless issu ed a permit that allows sales to occur between the hours of 12:00 p.m. noon and 12:00 a.m. midnight. Legislation is needed to create a new permit to allow liquor sales to occur prior to 12:00 p.m. noon on Sunday. Additional revenue will support Michigan Liquor Control Commission regulatory responsibilities with unexpended balances deposited to the stat e general fund. Annual impact, beginning for fiscal year 2010, $9. 1 million in general fund revenue. • Lottery Revenue Increase ($15.0 million) Under a recently awarded gaming syst em contract, retailers will be provided additional lottery terminals to sell on-line lottery tickets as well as instant tickets. For fiscal year 2010, the Governor proposes t o tie lottery promotion and advertising to 1 percent of previous sales revenue, increasing annual spending by approximately $5 million. Investing $835,000 for 10 FTE positions is needed to manage the inventory of additional terminals. More lottery terminals in combinations with enhanced advertising and promotion spending is expected to increase lottery sales and related revenue. Partial year impact, bef{inninff for fiscal year 2010, $15.0 million in School Aid Fund revenue. (Fiscal year 2011 impact: $30.8 million.) �Fiscal Year 2010 Executive Budget Proposed Revenue Enhancements ($in thousands} Revenue Enhancements FY 2010 GF/GP SAF 11. Commercial Rental Property 1$ 12. Cybershame-Publicize Major Delinquent Taxpayers I$ - 13. International and Certain Interstate Communications - 1$ 1o,ooo.o 1 1$ s,ooo.o 1 $ s,ooo.o 1 1$ 4,aoo.o 1 $ 9,7oo.o 1 $ 14,soo.o 1 14. Interstate Trucks and Trailers 1$ 7,ooo.o 1 $ 14,ooo.o 1 $ 21 ,ooo.o 1 Is. Oil and Gas Income Double Deduction 1$ 1,ooo.o 1 $ 3,1oo.o 1 $ 4,1oo.o 1 16. Other Tobacco Products-Double the Tax Rate 1$ - 1$ 4s,ooo.o 1 $ 4s,ooo.o 1 17. Personal Exemption-Suspend Indexing I$ 1o,6oo.o 1 $ 46,4oo.o 1 $ s7,ooo.o 1 Ia. Sales Tax Bad Debt Deduction 1$ a,aoo.o 1 $ 3,2oo.o 1 $ 12,ooo.o 1 19. Sales Tax Collection Allowance I$ 2,3oo.o 1 $ aoo.o 1 $ 3,1oo.o 1 110. Tobacco Tax Collection Allowance I$ 1,3oo.o 1 $ 1,9oo.o 1 $ 3,2oo.o 1 Subtotal Revenue Enhancements $ 1o,ooo.o 1 $ Total 45,800.0 $ 129,100.0 $ 174,900.0 Tax Enforcement 111 . Compliance Enforcement- Delinquent Bus. Tax Accts I$ 3,2oo.o 1 $ 7,aoo.o 1 $ 11 ,ooo.o 1 112. Income Tax Automation I$ 4oo.o 1 $ 3,6so.o 1 $ 4,oso.o 1 113. Use Tax Audit Letters to Businesses I$ aoo.o 1 $ 1.1oo.o 1 $ 2,soo.o 1 Subtotal Tax Enforcement $ 4,400.0 $ 13,150.0 $ 17,550.0 Other Revenue Measures 114. Liquor Revenue I$ 115. Lotter:t Revenue Increase I$ Total February 12, 2009 $ - 1$ 1s,ooo.o 1 $ 65,200.0 24,1oo.o 1 $ - $ 166,350.0 I$ $ 24,1oo.o 1 1s,ooo.o 1 231,550.0 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Proposed-Revenue-Enhancements Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book proposed revenue enhancements Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book proposed revenue enhancements. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50769 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/09c0de08b03ff03b8964047e47c3e14d.pdf 331298c93cf70040318880268bf21d5b PDF Text Text CMF Council of M ichigan Foundations Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. February 15, 2009 Memo to: Melanie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board of Trustees From: Susan Broman, David Egner, Carol Goss, Co-Chairs Public Policy Committee and Dana Linnane, Public Policy Fellow Re: Public Policy Report Below is a summary of Public Pol icy Committee activity since the October 2008 Board meeting, including: • activities listed by grantmaking area, including affinity group meetings; • published, policy-related articles; and • proposed schedule of upcoming meetings, conferences, and briefings. Activities since the October 2008 Board Meeting • Michigan Grantmakers in Aging o GIA spring conference committee planning meetings (October 27, November 24, December 15, and January 26) o Public policy fellow, Dana Linnane, attending the national GIA conference in Princeton, New Jersey October 29-3 1 as part of CMF' s Opportunity Grant. Dana met with other members of regional association of grantmakers to discuss and share regional efforts regarding aging initiatives. o May 15, 2009 was the date selected for the state-wide conference, Michigan's Mature Workforce: Philanthropy's Response to an Emerging Employment Crisis. Featured speakers include Olivia P. Maynard from Michigan and Jeri Sedlar and Linda Barrington, both from the Conference Board. • Arts and Culture o Cultural Data Project (CDP) Task Force Meetings (November 10, December 1, December 15, January 13, and February 4) o The CDP Task Force w ill reach out to other funders and gamer support via regional informational meetings in March 2009, to be hosted by the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan (March 6), the Rotary Charities of Traverse City (March 23), and the Frey Foundation (TBD). o The Arts Affinity group met at the Skillman Foundation on February 5 th to discuss new projects and respond to recent state and federal arts policy news, e.g., state budget cuts dissolving the Department of History, Arts, and Libraries, and the exclusion of arts stimulus money in the House and Senate proposed legislation. • Michigan's Economy o CMF created on its website a special section: Strategies and Resources for Foundations Dealing with the Economic Crisis that includes up-to-date links from foundation and nonprofit partners, information on the impact on giving, and links to journal and newspaper articles that feature detailed analysis of the crisis. �Public Policy Report February 2009 Page 2 o In November and December, CMF hosted a three-part, teleconference series: The Impact ofthe Economy & Election on Michigan CALL # I ~ The Economic Impact of a Detroit Automaker Contraction, featuring researchers from the Center for Automotive Research • CALL #2 ~ The Impact of the Election on Philanthropy, featuring Luis Maldonado, director, government relations and public policy, Council on Foundations and Becky Bechler, principal, Public Affairs Associates • Call #3 ~ The Economic Crisis' Impact on Michigan Nonprofits and Families, featuring Kyle Caldwell, president, Michigan Nonprofit Association, and Sharon Parks, president, Michigan League for Human Service CMF has surveyed its member foundations on the economic crisis. The survey explored how asset values have been affected and members' response and/or adjustments to grantmaking and community engagement now and in the future. CMF will use the survey responses to better serve its members. CMF has hosted, and will continue to host, a series of briefings regarding responding to the economic crisis and providing communities and funders information on new tools with which to stimulate the economy. They include: • Michigan's Benefit Access Initiative: an effort to draw down more federal benefits for individuals via a web-based platform (January 23) • Emergency Needs Briefing (January 29) • Low-profit Limited Liability Company Information Session (February 17) • Responding to the Federal Stimulus and Michigan's Energy Economy (February 24) • Preparing for the 2010 Census, hosted with MNA and the Population Research Center (March 19) • o o • Michigan College Access Network (MCAN) o Network Workgroup and MCAN Leadership Meetings (October 2 1, October 28, December 11, January 14, and February 17) o At the October 28 MCAN leadership meeting, state and foundation representatives decided to move forward and introduce a hybrid, NCAN-endorsed college access model, combining efforts simi lar to this in Ohio and North Carolina. The Michigan MCAN model will combine a state-wide, one-stop shop college access web portal with regional and local college access strategies. o In January, George Dixon of the Foundation for North Carolina College Access met with funders to discuss the North Carolina college access web portal. • Michigan Land Use Funders' meeting (December 5 and February 20) • Michigan Access to Recreation o Policy Advisory committee meeting (November 5) o State-wide A2R meeting (February 3) • Food Policy Group o Foundation members met for the first time to discuss issues related to food access, nutrition, farmers markets, and food economies in Michigan. (October 22 and December 17) • K-16 Education Funders o Funders meeting (December 8) o CMF hosted a teleconference briefing on January 28'h regarding newly passed Promise Zone legislation, featuring the governor's senior education advisor, Chuck Wilbur. �Public Policy Report February 2009 Page 3 o • Funders will meet with Kati Haycock at the Grand Rapids Community Foundation on February 19 to follow-up the conversation from her presentation at the CMF Annual Conference in October 2008 regarding education state policy recommendations. Michigan Grantmakers for Women & Girls o Women & Girls leadership met (January 12) to discuss the 2009 spring meeting and CMF annual conference planning. II. Public Policy Communications Since the October Board Meeting, CMF published fifteen policy-related News Wire articles and shared twenty-three public policy resources via the monthly E-News. (Note that underlined text below is a hyperlink to the original electronic version of the article.) CMF News Wire • 2/6/2009 New State L3C Legislation Creates Tool for Economic Revitalization • 2/2/2009 Colina Foundation Receives COF Critical Impact Award For Commitment To Early Chi ldhood Education • l/29/2009 Grantmakers. State Officials Meet To Find New Ways To Increase College Enrollment In Michigan • 1129/2009 Grand Rapids Community Foundation Supports New Citizen Journalism Bureaus • l/20/2009 Foundations Asked To Help With MPRI Funding With JEHT's Demise • l/15/2009 Need For Mentors Grows - Michigan Mentoring Update • 12/18/2008 Foundation Advocate U.S. Rep. Dave Camp Gets Top Republican Post On Ways & Means • 12/9/2008 Foundations Needed To Make 21st Century Schools Fund Initiative a Success • 12/4/2008 Congress Must Bailout Detroit's Big 3 To Prevent U.S., International Economic Spiral, Say Researchers • 12/ 1/2008 Foundations Join Effort To Fight Pove11y In Michigan • 11/21/2008 New IRS Commissioner Voices Support For Foundations & Philanthropic Sector • 11/11 /2008 Community Foundation for Muskegon County' s SWIFT Turbine Project Is Heralded At National Launch • 10/27/2008 Foundations Take Leadership Role In Helping Provide College Access To All • 10/7/2008 Congress Extends IRA Charitable Rollover Provision; Foundation Leaders Delighted �Public Policy Report February 2009 Page 4 • l 0/2/2008 Changing Times Call For Foundations To Tty New, Innovative Approaches To Sustain Nonprofits E-News January 2009 • Partnering with the Private and Philanthropic Sectors: A Governor's Guide to Investing in Early Childhood This National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices gu ide describes the nature and activities of early childhood public-private partnerships and includes profiles of governance, funding, programming and evaluation of 11 partnerships - including Michigan's Great Start program and Early Childhood Investment Corporation. • The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the University of Michigan requests your feedback on the MPPS - a survey investigating local officials' opinions and perspectives on important public policy issues and collecting information about their local policymaking. The survey will cover issues such as civil society and civic engagement, economic and workforce development, local-state governmental relations, regional governance, privatization, ethics, important problems facing the local government, policy priorities, local finances and demographics. • M ichigan's Weakened Financial Position and The Problem of Dual Deficits The Citizens Research Council of Michigan recent analysis of the State budget concludes that the basic financial condition of the State shows a weakened cash position in the face of Michigan's ongoing structural deficit and that Michigan is ill-prepared to deal with the current cyclical problems. • Lobbying for Good This FSG Social Impact Advisors report offers case studies about how nonprofits are increasingly working with corporate partners to leverage companies' political clout and explores the kinds of lobbying best for companies and society. • Huge Disparity in Poverty Among State's Schools and Communities New community-level data from the Michigan League for Human Services shows huge disparities in poverty and income among Michigan communities and school districts, according to three-year average Census data. • Senior Unemployment Rate Hits 31-Year High The Urban Institute reports that the December 2008 unemployment rate for adults age 65 and older reached 5.1 percent, a 31-year high. December 2008 • Taxpayer Cost of Federal Financing of Auto Manufacturers Compared with Likely Costs of Bankruptcies in Industty Anderson Economic Group and BBK report that the effects of an automaker bankruptcy would inflict much higher costs to United States taxpayers, up to four times the amount of the proposed federal bridge loans if at least two companies failed. • Approaches to Consolidating Local Government Services This Citizens Research Council of Michigan report defines approaches local governments may use in consolidating services during this era of constrained revenues. • Does Money Matter: Foster Parenting and Family Finances This University of Chicago Chapin Hall study explores whether financial strains impact the way foster parents carry out their roles. �Public Policy Report February 2009 Page 5 • How to Spend $3.92 Billion: Stabilizing Neighborhoods by Addressing Foreclosed and Abandoned Properties This Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia outlines II principles for governments to follow in designing neighborhood stabilization program plans. • Measuring Up 2008 : National Report Card on Higher Education The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education released its annual evaluation of the nation and all 50 states in providing Americans with education and training beyond high school through the bachelor's degree. National Report Card and Michigan' s Report Card November 2008 • Michigan's Nonprofits Struggle with Economic Downturn More than 300 Michigan nonprofit organizations completed this survey conducted by the Michigan Nonprofit Association and the Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University. • The Impact on the U .S. Economy of a Major Contraction of the Detroit Three Automakers This Center for Automotive Research report estimates the economic impact of a full or partial contraction of the Detroit Three on the U.S. economy and the ripple effect on suppliers, international manufacturers and the entire U.S. automotive industry. • Workforce Development as an Antipoverty Strategy: What Do We Know? What Should We Do? This recent National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan working paper explores the basic paradox of workforce development policy: that, in an era in which skills are more important than ever as determinants of labor market earnings, our country has spent fewer and fewer public dollars on workforce development over time. • Creating Postsecondary Pathways to Good Jobs for Young High School Dropouts: The Possibilities and the Challenges This Center for Law and Social Policy paper looks at strategies for connecting high school dropouts (ages 16 and 24) with pathways to postsecondary credentials with labor market value. • Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results from the First Year of a Randomized Controlled Study A Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. study concludes that more intensive - and expensive - mentoring and professional development for new teachers has little impact on teacher retention, classroom practice or student achievement in the teacher's first year. • Michigan's Offshore Wind Potential Michigan has the potential to become a big player in offshore wind energy according to a new Land Policy Institute (LPI) at Michigan State University report. • Federal Aid to Michigan This Citizens Research Council of Michigan report describes the relative success (or, more precisely, the relative lack of success) of Michigan individuals, businesses, nonprofit organizations and governments in obtaining federal funding. III. Proposed Meetings The following meetings are planned or still in development: February, 2009 • • 2/ 17/2009 Michigan College Access Network meeting, Jackson County Community Foundation S ite Visit 2/ 17/2009 Low-profit Limited Liability Company Briefing �Public Policy Report February 2009 Page 6 • 2/ 19/2009 Education Forum, featuring Kati Haycock and hosted by the Community Foundation for Muskegon County, Fremont Area Community Foundation and the Grand Haven Community Foundation • 2/24/2009 Responding to the Federal Stimulus and Michigan's Energy Economy March, 2009 • 3/ 19/2009 Preparing for the 2010 Census, Detroit and Grand Rapids briefings co-sponsored by CMF, MNA, and the Population Research Center • 3/20/2009 Land Use funders meeting • 3/24/2009 Foundations on the Hill, Washington DC April, 2009 • 4/28/2009 Governor' s Education Summit, highlighting college access Arts Affinity Group meeting, hosting Janet Brown, new executive • TBD director of Grantmakers in the Arts May, 2009 • 5115/2009 Grantmakers in Aging conference, Michigan's Mature Worliforce: Philanthropy's Response to an Emerging Employment Crisis �Priorities for Michigan's Economic Future Jobs, Education and Protecting Families J ennifer M. Granholm Governor State of Michigan State of the State Address State Capitol • Lansing • M ichigan Tuesday, February 3, 2009 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Public-Policy Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book public policy Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book public policy. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50770 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d744687aaf781642a263c88af0315839.pdf 9b8fb5601b504cd620735c2b266f45a5 PDF Text Text Michigan's Response to the Federal Stimulus Package February 24, 2009 @ 1:15 p.m. Regina Bell Director of Policy Office of Governor Jennifer Granholm Ms. Bell is responsible for working with internal and external stakeholders in developing, tracking, and implementing policy for the State of Michigan. Prior to joining the Governor' s Executive Office, Regina was Director of External Affairs for AT&T where she acted as the company's liaison to local and state elected officials as well as members of Congress. During her seven-year tenure with the company, she was successful in cultivating relationships with community and philanthropic organizations in a nine county region. She also served as Director of Government Affairs, responsible for monitoring legislative activity, and administering the company's Political Action Committee. Prior to joining AT&T she spearheaded the implementation of a job access reverse commute program in the City of Detroit that assisted work-first and welfare-to-work customers with transportation needs to high employment areas outside of Detroit. She also worked in the Michigan House of Representatives as a legislative staff member for 7 years. Regina is a graduate of Michigan State University (MSU), James Madison College and sits on the James Madison College Alumni Association Board of Directors. She is a former fellow of the Michigan Political Leadership Program (MPLP) at MSU and sits on the MPLP Steering committee. Regina was elected Chair of the Great Lakes Region Red Cross Blood Donor Board in 2005. Lies) Eichler Clark Deputy Director, Energy Systems Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth Lies! Eichler Clark, is deputy director of Energy Systems in the new Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (DE LEG), which officially opened for business on December 29. DELEG, created by Executive Order 2008-20 and signed by Governor Jennifer M. G ranholm on October 27, 2008, aligns a ll energy sector initiatives, promotes economic growth and job creation to prepare Michigan for the new energy economy, and adds "Energy" to the former Department of Labor & Economic Growth's name in recognition of this concentrated effort. As deputy director, Lies! oversees all government-related e nergy sector activities to make Michigan a national leader in renewable energy, advanced energy technologies and energy efficiency, including efforts to "Green Michigan," develop and deploy sustainable practices, and address climate change. Lies! comes to DE LEG from Gov. Granholm's office where she served as policy advisor for energy, agriculture, environment and natural resources. Previously, she worked at the Department of Agriculture as policy advisor for renewable fuels and as legislative liaison, and she served with the Senate Democratic Caucus as policy advisor of agriculture and environment for the Departments of Agriculture, Environmental Quality and Natural Resources. Lies! has a Masters in Public Administration from Michigan State University, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in political economy from MSU's James Madison College. She recently graduated with the first class of the Great Lakes Leadership Academy. �Douglas Parks Michigan Economic Developme nt Corporation Doug Parks is Senior Vice President of New Market Development for the Michigan Econom ic Development Corporation (MEDC) with specific focus on the alternative energy sector. He leads a broad-based team comprised of experts in biofuels, wind, solar, advanced ene rgy storage, carbon sequestration and water technology, who are dedicated to continue to increase the economy of Michigan while leveraging the state's significant strengths in this sector. Prior to joining the MEDC, Doug Parks was a vice president at Valassis Communications, heading a d ivision that deve loped print, software and Web site solutions for travel industry organizations. Doug began his career at MEDC as a division d irector for Travel Michigan, the state's tourism promotion and marketing organization, where he was responsible for technology initiatives, as well as overseeing the state's thirteen welcome centers. He subsequently served as its deputy director, dealing with program development and budget management, and later became vice president ofe-MEDC, overseeing implementation of the corporation's technology for 24/7 delivery of services to customers. Doug also has served as MEDC's senior vice president of administration, managing budget, finance, contracts and grants, office services, human resources, information technology, Web development, telecommunications and customer relationship management; and directed the efforts of the organization's research team. Doug is a retired U.S. Army Intelligence Officer and a graduate of Lake Superior State University. Stanley "Skip" Pruss Director, Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth Stanley "Skip" Pruss, a graduate of the University of Michigan and Wayne State University Law School, most recently served as Governor Granho lm's Special Advisor on Renewable E nergy and the Environment. Mr. Pruss served as Deputy Director of the Department of Environmental Quality from January 2003 to August 2007. Prior to his service at DEQ and the Governor's Office, Mr. Pruss was the Assistant Attorney General in Charge of Michigan's Consumer Protection Division and Chair of the Public Protection Practice Group within the Department of Attorney General. Mr. Pruss practiced environmental protection and natural resource law for 13 years and was the legal advisor to the Natural Resources Commission and the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Pruss has received numerous public service awards and citations during his career including selection by the American Bar Association as the 200 1-2002 recipient of the Mary C. Lawto n Award for Outstanding Government Service. Governor Granholm issued Executive Order 2008-20 which adds to the focus of the Department of Labor & Economic Growth's objectives. T he EO also changes the name of the Department to the Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (DELEO) which becomes effective December 28, 2008. Many of the activities in state government related to the energy sector will be joined in the new DELEO inc luding efforts to "Green Michigan", develop and deploy sustainable practices, and address climate change. Our view is that the new energy economy is Michigan's greatest opportunity to create new jobs, attract new investment and diversify our economy. DE LEG's important objective is to make Michigan a national leader in renewable energy, advanced energy technologies and energy efficiency. Michigan's e nergy efforts can only be strengthened by the outstanding wo rkforce development, workplace protection, and business service and regulatory competencies that the current DLEG possesses. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-02-24_Response-to-the-Federal-Stimulus-Package Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book response to the federal stimulus package Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-02-24 board book response to the federal stimulus package. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50771 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-02-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/12c0048600af0c44cf95d4793723887e.pdf 75a8d9bd51c4f0d715bb00f660c9d9c0 PDF Text Text CMF Council of Michigan Foundat ions Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. Board of Trustees Meeting Thursday, June 4, 2009 10:00 a.m.-3:00p.m. MASCO Corporation Foundation Room: Multi C 21001 Van Born Road Taylor, MI 48180-1340 313-792-6126 AGENDA I. Call to Order & Introductions - Melanie Colaianne, Chairperson ACTION ITEMS II. Consent Agenda February 24, 2009 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes Financial Report/Internal Statements for March 3 1, 2009 Investment Committee Report for March 31, 2009 III. Treasurer's Report/Year End Audit- Brenda Hunt & Dave Lindberg 2 IV. Membership Committee- John Colina 3 V. Governance Committee- Carol Goss 4 REPORTS VI. President's Report - Rob Collier 5 Corporate Philanthropy- Caroline Chambers Public Policy Committee- Susan Broman & Dana Linnane SPECIAL UPDATE- Michigan's Advanced Energy Economy Initiative Shannon Bouton & Cesare Maifredi, McKinsey & Co. Diversity and Inclusion Initiative- Vicki Rosenberg & Kimberly Burton VII. "A Pathway to an Extraordinary Board" Professor Lynn Wooten, University of Michigan VIII. Other Next Meeting Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 2:30 to 5:00 p.m. 3th Annual Conference at the Detroit Marriott, November 4-6, 2009 �CMF Council of M ichi an Foun1ations Serving grantrnakers. Advancing g iving. Executive Summary of 6.4.09 Board Agenda 10:00 a.m.- 3:00p.m. MASCO Corporation TAB I. Call to Order & Introductions - Melanie Colaianne, Chairperson ACTION ITEMS II. Consent Agenda February 24, 2009 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes Financial Report/Internal Statements for March 31, 2009 Investment Committee Report for March 31, 2009 1 RESOLVED that the February 24, 2009 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes, the March 31, 2009 Financial Statements and the March 31, 2009 Investment Committee Report be accepted as presented. III. Treasurer's Report/ Year End Audit - Brenda Hunt & Dave Lindberg 2 RESOLVED that the CMF & Supporting Organizations March 31, 2009 & 2008 Audit Report, as recommended by the CMF Audit Committee, be accepted. IV. Membership Committee- John Colina 3 RESOLVED that the following grantmakers be approved for membership: Chelsea-Area Wellness Foundation, Chelsea Amy Heydlauff, executive director • Newly formed private foundation from the sale of Chelsea Community Hospital with a $25 million endowment to make grants to improve the health and wellness of residents of Chelsea, Manchester, Stockbridge, Grass Lake, Dexter, Gregory and Munith. Ralph C. Wilson Foundation, Grosse Pointe Farms Mary Owen, executive director • Created in 1954 by Ralph C. Wilson Jr. who is founder and owner of the Buffalo Bills with assets of $645,000 and grantmaking of $1.5 million to health care, education and social services organizations. Rejoined. Lovelight Foundation, Ann Arbor Julie F. Cummings, president and Peg Talburtt, CEO • Newly formed family foundation with assets of $1 million ; first grants to be made by December; www.lovelightfoundation.org. AND RESOLVED further that the following metrics for Membership be approved: • 100'% of members contacted by volunteers per Retention Campaign • 100'% of members contacted by staff �Board Agenda Summary June 4, 2009 Page 2 • • V. Gain of nine members with a projected $29,000 in membership dues Loss offourteen members with a projected loss of $31,000 in membership dues Governance Committee- Carol Goss 4 RESOLVED that the Governance Committee Roles and Responsibilities with Nominations Policy, as submitted by the Governance Committee, be adopted as proposed. REPORTS VI. President's Report - Rob Collier Corporate Philanthropy- Caroline Chambers Public Policy Committee - Susan Broman & Dana Linnane SPECIAL UPDATE Michigan's Advanced Energy Economy Initiative Shannon Bouton & Cesare Maisredi, McKinsey & Co. Diversity and Inclusion Initiative - Vicki Rosenberg, Kimberly Burton 12:30 p.m. VII. Break for LUNCH in cafeteria 1:15-3:00 p.m. "A Pathway to an Extraordinary Board" Professor Lynn Wooten, University of Michigan VIII. Adjournment 5 �Faculty Profile- Stephen M . Ross School of Business r:l M I CHIGAN ROSS SCitOOl OF BUSINESS I Page 1 of 1 II I I I I Directories & Contacts Facu~y.l. Research Academics Aomis$ion$ 1 Stuoent c~reer Senrices Sti.IOellt life AII,Jmni \lisi\ I I Technolog)l' Recr\Jiler lnform.ation Catendars & Events News & Media <HOME Faculty & Research SEARCH < Back to Faculty & YOU ARE HERE: Home > Faculty & Research > Faculty Profiles ... Research > Books by Faculty Lynn Perry Wooten > Faculty in the News Clinical Associate Professor of Strategy and Management & Organizations > Faculty Teaching Materials > Institutes, Centers, Programs & Partnerships PHD, University Of Michigan MBA, Duke University B.S., North Carolina A&T State University ,...Search Working Papers • Faculty Prof iles > Download Faculty Photographs » PhD Program > Research Business Office > Hosmer Faculty luncheons iM act ~Faculty Lynn Perry Wooten's current research focuses on how changes in workforce demographics and the knowledge economy influence the implementation of strategic human resource management practices. In particular, she examines how these human resource management & Staff Directory > My Faculty Profile r+Kresge Curriculum Services > Research Resources > Faculty Support f+ Professor Lynn Perry Wooten joined University of Michigan Business School faculty in 1998 and earned her Ph.D. from the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. Prior to joining the faculty at Ross, she was an assistant professor at the University of Florida. She teaches organizational behavior, nonprofit management and strategic consulting courses. She is the co-director of the Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship at the Ross School of Business. pra.;Li.;t::s afft::d lht:: pt::rfurrrmH<.;t:: uf urgaH izatiuH~ aiH.l t::lllpluyt::t::-rt::latt::u uuL.;uHlt::~ . Pruft::~~ur Wooten has three streams of research examining these issues: (l) how positive organizing routines influence human resource management capabilities, innovation, customer service, healthcare management,and financial performance; (2) how firms respond, are resilient, and learn from crisis situations; and (3) why organizations invest in certain human resource management policies, such as women-friendly practices, diversity management and work/life programs, and how these programs influence the firm 's capability to recruit, develop, leverage and retain human capital. TO EXECUTIVE EDUCATION J+ TO 1-l:RESGE LIBRARY Lynn Perry Wooten Stephen M. Ross School of Business University of Michigan 701 Tappan St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109- 1234 Phone: ( 734) 763-0486 Fax: (734) 764-2557 E-Mail : lpwooten@um ich.edu Office Location: R4330 Working Papers 1 Faculty Vita Management and Organizations Web Site 1 Strategy Web Site SEARCH I SlHI.IIAl' ACCESSISILIT¥ FEATURES " PRIVACY STillE ME Ni http:/ /www.bus.umich.edu/FacultyBios/FacultyBio.asp?id=OOO 119746 UM HDI.IE 5/27/2009 �MCKINSEY TEAM PROFILES Shannon Bouton Cesare Maifredi Manager, Detroit Manager, Houston • Manager of the Energy Efficiency Service Line within McKinsey's Special Initiative on Climate Change • Affiliate of the Electric Power and Natural Gas Practice and core member of the McKinsey Solar Knowledge Initiative • Expert in McKinsey's Special Initiative on Climate Change • Affiliate of the Electric Power/Natural Gas and Social Sector Practices • Extensive experience in Energy Efficiency business models and strategy and global regulatory design • PhD, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Michigan • Extensive experience in renewable power generation (particularly solar, wind and biomass) and upstream oil and gas businesses • Served multiple clients on renewables business models and market entry strategy, financial and environmental impact evaluations, regulatory strategy • MBA, Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Virginia 0 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-06-04_Board-Agenda Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-06-04 board book board agenda Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-06-04 board book board agenda. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50772 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-06-04 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f9264d950b207fab48145ede597e2cb4.pdf fe1216d86727904449efcbf9d477726e PDF Text Text May 27,2009 To: Melonie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board of Trustees From: Carol Goss, Chairperson Governance and Initiative Advisory Committees Kimberly Burton, Vice President, Corporate Services and Director of Diversity and Inclusive Practice; Dave Lindberg, Vice President, Administration and Finance; Vicki Rosenberg, Vice President, Education, Communications and External Relations Transforming Michigan Philanthropy Through Diversity & Inclusion (TMP) Highlights of Progress since February 2009 Board Meeting Re: Transforming Michigan Philanthropy Through Diversity and Inclusion (TMP) is a five-year initiative, approved by the Board of Trustees at its February 2008 meeting, that seeks to increase the effectiveness and accountability oforganized philanthropy in Michigan. TMP responds to the Board 's: • • • Belief that "diversifying perspectives, talent and experience can help ensure philanthropy's continued leadership in a rapidly changing society" Directive for CMF to become a more diverse and inclusive membership association and to encourage members to do the same Support confirmed by resolutions passed in 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2008 It is important to share that_at the invitation of the Diversity in Philanthropy Project (D PP), CMF is serving as lead partner for a seven-regional association team participating in 0 5, a one-year project involving philanthropic infrastructure groups in the development of a strategy to advance diversity and inclusive practice across the sector. Other members are the Council on Foundations, Foundation Center, J oint Affinity Groups, and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors representing diverse donors. I. Progress on Research Four baseline research studies have been completed as listed below. Unless otherwise indicated, research was conducted by the Community Research Institute (CRI), Johnson Center, Grand Valley State University. Attached are the Executive Summaries of the three noted below. • • • • CMF Policy Review Demographic Survey Executive Summary CMF Staff & Board Attitudes & Perceptions of Diversity Survey Executive Summary Policy Review Executive Summary - prepared for the Knowledge Symposium Select reports will be posted on www.michiganfoundations.org and their availability announced to CMF members, the network of regional associations of grantmakers and other philanthropic infrastructure organizations in June 2009. II. Progress on the Four Objectives Objective 1: Become a model regional association and resource to national field �Diversity & Inclusion Report May 2009 Strategy 1: To institutionalize diversity and inclusion throughout CMF staffing, operations, governance, membership and member services/programs • Based on results of CRI review of CMF internal and board policies: o Presented a board nominations policy and Governance Committee Roles & Responsibility charter to the Governance Committee and Board for action (June 2009); o Researched best practices and developing vendor policy (Aug. 2009) o Conducting research to inform a hiring policy (late 2009). • Based on results ofCMF Staff and Board Attitudes & Perceptions of Diversity Survey: o Contracted with Dr. Lynn Wooten, Ross School of Business, U ofM, to conduct a workshop for the June 2009 CMF Board meeting o Researching staff and leadership training options for 2009 to follow prior training including : 100% participation in an introductory training followed by the two-day Facing Racism workshop and a visit to the Race Exhibit at the Charles H. Wright Museum of African-American History • Researching recommendations for Membership Committee for revised membership criteria for public charities to attract more racial and ethnically based organizations • Staffing Michigan Forum for African-American Philanthropy Strategy 2: To develop, test and share resources (data, tools, case studies, etc.) with regional association network and national field • • Engaged leaders from four regional associations; BoardSource; Council on Foundations; GrantCraft/Ford Foundation; Millenium Project, Indiana University; and Philanthropic Initiative on Racial Equity at the CMF-Diversity in Philanthropy Project (DPP) Symposium on Diversity and Inclusion in Philanthropy: The Michigan Experience (March 2009, Detroit) Presenting at Forum of Regional Associations and Communications Network 2009 annual conferences Objective Two: Increase member awareness, understanding, action in diversity and inclusion and social equity grantmaking Strategy: To provide all resources necessary to move members along awareness to action continuum Awareness o Added new resources to Diversity and Inclusion section of Effective Practice area, www.michiganfoundations.org o Announcing availability of baseline research findings, CMF-DPP symposium proceedings and materials on www.michiganfoundations.org (June 2009) o Publishing article on baseline research results, Memo to Members (July 2009) Education �Diversity & Inclusion Report May 2009 o o Planning annual conference session on diversity and inclusion and organizational effectiveness (Nov. 2009) Planning Symposium on Social Equity & Philanthropy (April 2010) Objective Three: Help 20 member foundations achieve their goals for diversity, inclusion and social equity Strategy: To form and support a peer learning network/community of practice • Engaged 23 me mber foundations (13 in teams of2 to 4 with 9 CEOs and 2 trustees), seven CMF trustees and three YAC members in Symposium on Diversity and Inclusion in Philanthropy: The Michigan Experience (March 2-4, Westin Book Cadillac Hotel, Detroit), as initial step in forming peer learning network. Proceedings from the Symposium will be on michiganfoundations.org by July. • An 18-minute documentary produced by the Diversity in Philanthropy Project about the work ofCMF, the Ruth Mott Foundation and Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan was premiered at the COF annual conference (May 2009) (copies will be distributed at the June Board meeting) Developing the Peer Learning Network model; related social networking site; and database of user selected resources, tools, policies and data for launch in late summer/early fall 2009 Objective Four-: To increase the diversity of foundation staff, executives and ti·ustees. Strategy: To develop fe llowships, internships or other strategies for attracting more diverse individuals to careers in philanthropy • Researched existing models and prepared report and preliminary recommendations to TMP Advisory Committee for discussion at June 2, 2009 meeting. III. Funding Received $750,000 grant from W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2009-2013) and $150,000 grant from Kresge Foundation ($50,000/year x 3 years) and an invitation from the Mott Foundation to submit the second of five annual grant requests at $ 150,000 per year. Attached: • Executive Summary : CMF Staff & Board Attitudes & Pe rceptions of Diversity Survey • Executive Summary: Demographic Survey • Executive Summary : Policy Review �Divers ity & Inclusion Report May 2009 Attitudes and Perceptions on Diversity Survey Executive Summary Prepared May 2009 In early 2009, the Community Research Institute (CRI) at the Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University, on behalf of the Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF), conducted a study of the attitudes and perceptions of CMF staff and board members regarding diversity. Much of this study was based on a framework of diversity perception grounded in theories of perceived dissimilarity (Hohman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2003) and acceptance of difference and similarity (Miville eta!., 1999). That study's multi-faceted framework defines diversity perception to be how different one perceives oneself to be from the rest of one's coworkers, how accepting one is of both these differences and similarities, how open one perceives coworkers to be of differences, and how one perceives differences to impact organizational effectiveness. A survey designed within this framework was administered to the CMF board and staff. The objectives of this survey were twofold. First, it sought to create a baseline measurement to better understand CMF's internal attitudes toward diversity at the start of the organization's Transforming Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion initiative. The survey will be administered at a later date and the comparative results will be used to measure the extent to which change occurred in attitudes and perceptions over time. The second objective was to measure the level of consensus that currently exists among these internal stakeholders' (i.e. staff and board members') perceptions of diversity. Both ofthese objectives were operationalized in the following research questions: 1. What are stakeholders' perceptions of diversity and of the role of diversity in organizational effectiveness? 2. How dissimilar do stakeholders perceive themselves to be from their colleagues, and how open do stakeholders perceive their colleagues to be to dissimilarity? 3. To what extent do stakeholders appreciate both their similarities to and differences from other people? Combined, these research questions provide a comprehensive measure of internal stakeholders' perceptions of diversity by providing insight into each individual's attitudes on organizational diversity, view ofpersonal dissimilarity, and appreciation of others' differences and likenesses. In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how the survey results begin to answer the research questions, researchers utilized methods to combine related survey items into themes. A total of21 board and 22 staffmembers completed the survey, comprising 75% and 100% response rates, respectively. The survey asked respondents a series of demographic questions in order to obtain self-reported personal identification information. Females accounted for 54% of those surveyed. One respondent indicated having a disability. Most of the individuals surveyed (79%) identified themselves as white, with 13% identifying as Black/African American and one person identifying as Hispanic/Latino(a). Three racial/ethnic groups had no representation among respondents. The majority of respondents were in either the 50-59 or 40-49 age groups (33% and 25%, respectively). In tern1s of sexual orientation, 81% of respondents identified themselves as heterosexual and 4% as homosexual. �Diversity & Inclusion Report May 2009 In general, the data from the survey showed that CMF's internal stakeholders had positive perceptions of diversity. Most trustees and employees perceived that CMF values diversity as an organization. The average respondent also appreciated the positive impact diversity has on organizational effectiveness. Survey participants indicated that they generally perceived CMF's climate to be open to diversity. The data for openness to diversity tended to support this, with stakeholders indicating that they feel that the individuals with whom they work most closely were open to background, visible, and- to a slightly lesser extent-value differences. Still, there was variation in perceived values and goals among CMF stakeholders. These variations in perceptions were often related to demographic divisions, including: Organizational Role: Board members perceived that the persons with whom they work most closely were more open to dissimilarity than staff members. Sex: Female stakeholders perceived that CMF's climate was less open to diversity than males. Males perceived that team members were more open to individuals with different educational and experiential backgrounds than females. Race/Ethnicity: Stakeholders of color perceived themselves to be more actively agents of change for diversity than White stakeholders. Respondents of color also tended to perceive themselves as more dissimilar to their team members, both in terms of visible attributes and of values and motivations that drive their work, than white respondents. While persons of color perceived lower levels of openness to visible difference, they perceived greater openness to dissimilarity of work values and motivations among their team members. Lastly, board and staff members of color showed greater acceptance and appreciation for the differences and similarities between individuals. Data suggested that CMF board and staff members were dedicated to the work of promoting diversity and were already undertaking this in their own lives. On the whole, respondents saw themselves as agents of change for diversity. Furthermore, the results of the dissimilarity and openness analysis suggested that CMF's relatively high levels of openness to difference should prevent the occurrence of conflict (Hohman eta!., 2003) and encourage increased group involvement (Hohman et a!., 2004). Respondents' overall perceptions of relativistic appreciation also suggested that trustees and employees should be effective at interacting with those around them (Fuertes et al., 2000; Miville eta!., 1999). High levels of involvement and interaction should lead to an organizational culture that is conducive to undertaking this work. �Divers ity & Inclusion Report May 2009 Demographic Survey Results Executive Summary UPDATED SINCE THE FEBRUARY 2009 DRAFT Introduction The Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF) has undertaken the Transfonning Michigan Philanthropy Through Diversity and Inclusion initiative (2008-2013) to improve the effectiveness and accountability of organized philanthropy in Michigan. As part of this initiative, in 2008, CMF commissioned the Community Research Institute (CRI) at the Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University to design and conduct the first demographic survey of Michigan foundation staffs and trustees. The survey was completed between May and October 2008. This survey is the second statewide foundation demographic study to be conducted in the United States to date. To contribute to what is anticipated to be an increasing number of such surveys, CMF and CRI coordinated survey design with the Foundation Center which conducted an earlier study in California. By using a subset of identical questions, CMF and CRI sought to contribute to and encourage the development of state-by-state data for future use by the philanthropic sector. Approximately 650 Michigan foundations were mailed invitations to participate in the survey. Those 650 included all family foundations with assets of $1 million or more, all independent and corporate foundations, and community foundations which are members ofCMF. Of those, 89 foundations (13 .7%) responded, including: 32 community foundations, eight corporate foundations, 23 family foundations, 18 independent foundations, three public foundations, and five foundations of other types. The responses represent the vast diversity of types, sizes and locations of Michigan foundations. Data from the survey form a baseline to be used by CMF and individual foundations for framing conversations, setting goals for greater diversity within the sector, and for guiding strategies. Key Findings Board Chairs and CEOs The survey asked a series of questions about the demographics of foundation Board Chairs and the CEOs. The ages of Board Chairs and CEOS cover a wide range. Respondents reported having Chairs from 35 to 92 years of age and CEOs from 32 to 92 years of age with the averages being 62 and 56, respectively. Tenure was similarly broad: Chairs had served on their boards-in any capacity- from one to 51 years, while CEOs had held their positions zero to 32 years (an average of 14 and 10 years, respectively). Racially, Board Chairs were predominantly White (79 individuals or 90%). Eight Board Chairs were Black/African American; one indicated another race, and one did not respond with a race. Of the CEOs, four were Black/African American; two were Asian/Asian American; 75 were White; one CEO was another race, while seven respondents marked no race for their CEOs. There was no representation of Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders or Native Americans/Alaska �Diversity & Inclusion Report May 2009 Natives among responding foundations' leadership. There was more racial diversity among Board Chairs and CEOs in southern parts of Michigan than in northern parts of the state, and there was greater racial diversity among younger and less tenured CEOs. Very few Board Chairs or CEOs had a disability. While 7% ofCEOs were non-native English speakers, less than half that percent of Board Chairs spoke a language other than English as their first language. Board and Staff Participating foundations had a total of 1,007 board members (ranging from two to 50 members on each board). Foundations reported employing 93 individuals at the level of Vice President or higher (not including CEOs), averaging one per organization. Below the Vice President level, respondents indicated employing 566 full-time and 89 part-time employees (an average of six and one per foundation, respectively). The data show that, on average, women made up 40% of board members. In contrast, the average staff was predominately female, especially below the Vice President level. There was low minority representation among executive foundation staff (2.4% Hispanic/Latino/Latina and 6.3% Black/African American, on average) and trustees (1.1% Hispanic/Latino/Latina and 8.0% Black/African American, on average). The ethnic/racial composition of fu ll-time staff below the Vice President level was notably similar to that of the population ofthe state of Michigan. Board members were, on average, older than staff members, and executives were older than non-executive full-time staff. Part-time staff members below the Vice President level were more likely to be either younger or older than members in other employee groups (perhaps a result of employment of individuals new to the workforce and those transitioning into retirement). Persons with disabilities and non-native English speakers made up a low percentage of boards and staffs. Policy and Grantmaking To determine the prevalence of diversity-related policies, the survey asked foundations to report on the presence of diversity language in their policies. One-quarter of respondents indicated having specific goals, policies, or guidelines regarding staff diversity, while 43% of foundations had policies on board diversity and 20% had executive diversity guidelines. Researchers compared the demographics of foundations relative to these policies. This analysis showed that the 43% of foundations with board diversity policies appeared to have more racially/ethnically diverse boards and the 25% of foundations with staff diversity policies appeared to have more racially/ethnically diverse full-time staff and less diverse part-time staff than those organizations without such policies. Eighteen percent of participants stated that their foundations' missions led to all of their grants serving specific demographic populations, while 54% indicated that some grants served specific populations and 28% had no demographic target. When asked which populations their grantmaking guidelines or mission statements specifically targeted, participants responded with a variety of answers-the most regularly cited of these was youth and children (37%). There was a relationship between endowment size and demographic targeting of grantmaking. A smaller percentage of foundations with medium-sized endowments and grantmaking amounts targeted their grantmaking at specific demographic groups than both their small and large counterparts. Youth Advisory Committees A second, related survey, conducted in winter 2008-2009, asked community foundations (49 respondents, a 57% response rate) with Youth Advisory Committees (YACs) to provide demographic data on YAC members and advisors. Among respondents, females accounted for the majority ofYAC members and advisors. On average, more than 80% ofYAC members were �Diversity & Inclusion Report May 2009 over the age of 15. In terms of race and ethnicity, the average Y AC was approximately 7% Black/African American, 7% Hispanic/Latino/Latina, 3% Native American, over 80% White, and 3% multi-racial. Arab/Arab American and Asian/Asian American members comprised a small percentage ofYAC members. Very few non-native English speakers and youth with disabilities were Y AC members. Nearly 90% of Y AC advisors were White, while 9% of advisors were Black/African American. YAC diversity did vary by geographic region-the most racially and ethnically diverse being in southeast Michigan. �Diversity & Inclusion Report May 2009 Review of 11 CMF Member Foundations' Policies for Diversity & Inclusion Executive Summary Prepared April 2009 As part ofCMF's Transforming Michigan Philanthropy through Diversity and Inclusion initiative, CRI (The Community Research Institute at the Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University) reviewed the policies of foundations participating in the Symposium on Diversity and Inclusion in Philanthropy: The Michigan Experience co-sponsored by CMF and the Diversity in Philanthropy Project, March 2-4, 2009 in Detroit. Policies were collected from 11 of the 15 foundations that sent teams to the symposium. These institutions represent a wide variety of sizes and types of foundations from across the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The purpose of this examination was to get a snapshot of the extent to which foundations with varying levels of explicit commitment to being diverse and inclusive formal ize that commitment in their policies. More specifically, this exploratory research sought to achieve two objectives: to determine the extent to which foundations' policies related to diversity and inclusion align with those found in the literature; and to synthesize the policy elements both present in and absent from foundation policies. Among the documents provided were organizational bylaws, employee handbooks, and grantmaking guidelines, to name a few. All of these documents were analyzed to create a baseline understanding of the role diversity and inclusion plays in each organization's policies. Policies are crucial to organizations because they formalize and align practices and convey an institution's values to internal and external audiences. Policies are not only a means of complying with laws and regulations; they are also opportunities to articulate how the organization translates goals and values into action. Policies, written clearly, allow an organization to have a precise, unified understanding of expectations and standards, and can provide a means for accountability and transparency (Wilson, 1989). A thorough literature review revealed that there is no standard methodology for analyzing policies' incorporation of diversity and inclusion. Discussions with national leaders on foundation diversity and inclusion- Renee Branch of the Council on Foundations and Lawrence McGill of the Foundation Center, among others-verified that they knew of no model for foundation diversity policy analysis. Thus, an original rubric was developed based upon current practices for incorporating diversity and inclusion into policies, as cited in the literature and used by other organizations, including the Center for Effective Philanthropy and Philanthropy New York. This tool was used to ascertain the extent to which foundations' policies align with current documented practices in areas related to the scope of diversity; governance; human resource management; programming and operations; engagement and outreach; and plann ing, monitoring, and evaluation. Further analysis sought to determine which types of policies related to diversity and inclusion were present in and absent from provided policy documents. Miles and Hubernmn (1994) point out that a multi-method approach (i.e. an examination based upon a framework followed by a more free-form synthesis of themes) is often necessary to strengthen qualitative studies ofthis type. The methods used in this study for reviewing the policies were modifications of content analysis. While this approach is most often used to analyze interview and focus group transcripts, �Diversity & Inclusion Report May 2009 it can be used in studies which start" .. .from the distribution of perspectives on a certain issue of process" (Flick, 2009, p.322) and build toward synthesizing findings for a greater understanding. It was, therefore a rigorous and an appropriate approach to be applied in this effort. Findings Each foundation's policies are different, presenting several methods of formalizing practice and expressing diversity and inclusion. Despite these differences, an analysis of these documents brought forth several over-arching themes which are discussed below. General Policies Most foundations explicitly state policies defining their visions of diversity and inclusion. Most participating foundations include diversity or inclusion as part of their values, visions, or goals. All foundations prohibit harassment b ut vary in the listed characteristics which may be the cause of harassment. Further, many have specific sexual harassment policies in addition to general harassment policies. Few foundations have policies which incorporate language describing the ways in which communications and decision-making actively include the voices of various stakeholders. Very few foundations have policies related to planning, monitoring, and evaluating the implementation of their commitments to diversity and inclusion. Staff- and Board-related Policies Policies related to staff diversity and inclusion are more prevalent than those pertaining to trustees. A ll foundations have Equal Employment Opportunity policies, but they vary in the characteristics explicitly protected (many do not list sexual orientation or gender identity) and the aspects of employment (hiring, training, development, compensation, etc.) opportunity. Some foundations have broad definitions offamily- such as domestic partnerships (whether same- or opposite-sex), parents/children of partners, and dependent adults beyond children and parents- for benefits such as health care and bereavement leave as well as prohibitive policies like conflict of interest, but most do not. W hile all foundations have statements of reasonable accommodation for employees w ith disabilities, few have explicit supporting policies such as evacuation procedures for persons with limited mobility in the event of an emergency or flexibility in scheduling for individuals whose disabilities may cause fatigue from working a standard office schedule. Very few foundations include statements encouraging diversity among their board, committees, and officers. No foundation participating in this review has a policy encouraging staff members from groups which are historically under-represented in management positions to take advantage of professional development and tuition re imbursement programs. External Stakeholder-related Policies Less than half of participant foundations have policies regarding community- and stakeholder-engagement on diversity and inclusion. Few participant foundations have policies requiring that their endowments be invested in sources which espouse similar values of diversity and implement inclusive practices. Some foundations require their grantees to provide demographic data of their staffs and board, while others request that applicants supply their internal diversity statement. Some foundations provide grants specifically to effect positive change in the community related to diversity and inclusion, but many participants do not explicitly state such program areas. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-06-04_Diversity-and-Inclusion Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-06-04 board book diversity and inclusion Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-06-04 board book diversity and inclusion. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50773 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-06-04 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/87a01701edd819f8930784db40c6fa11.pdf cafee63f159fc55d80e0d92832691df0 PDF Text Text May 22, 2009 Memo to: Melonie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board ofTrustees From: Phil Peters, Audit Committee Chair David Lindberg RE: CMF 3-31-09 Internal Financial Statements RESOLVED that the CMF Core Services and Endowment Funds March 31, 2009 internal financial statements, as recommended by the CMF Audit Committee, be accepted. On May 18, 2009 the Audit Committee met and approved the CMF Core Services and Endowment Funds internal financial statements. Key Items to Note For 2008-09 Core Services ended the year with a $62,000 surplus. The major variances from budget were in the following areas: Line Item Revenue Investment earnings Expenses Wages Postage Supplies Auto Purchase Technology Communications Travel Over (Under) Budget (50,900) (36,600) ( 10,600) (7,700) 26,700 (21 ,400) (29,800) ( 16,600) S:\Boards and Commi ttees\CMF\Board\2009- 10\6.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab I - Consent Agenda\lntemal Financials Memo 3-3 1-09.doc �Core Operations Note 1: Additional Member Contributions The bulk of this category is the $ 150,000 grant from Kellogg. 2009-10 represents the final year of the current five year commitment. Note 2: Other Grants Includes the following: Skillman Detroit Office Su Transfer Fatherhood meeting revenue to special grant dollars $25,000 (2,308) Note 3: Conference & Meetings Revenue & Expenses The October 2008 annual conference contributed $139,000 to cover staff time spent on the conference vs. a budget of$123,000. Total staff time to produce the conference is estimated at $200,000. The additional contribution is due to attendance exceeding expectations. Note 4: Investment Income The projected budget variance is due to the rate of return on the money market account which has dropped below 1% vs. 5% last year. Note 5: Wages The variance from budget is due to the following items. Director of Corporate Services- position not filled till Nov 2008 Additional time to Philanthropy 3D project Additional time on Diversity & Inclusiveness project ECIC Project ending August of2008 $36,000 3,000 7,000 (6,300) Note 6: Equipment & Furniture $1,500 of this amount was to replace the board room carpet in Grand Haven. The remaining balance is due to the purchase of a new car for Rob, which turned out to be a cheaper alternative to leasing, with his current lease coming to an end. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2009- 10\6.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab I- Consent Agenda\lntemal Financials Memo 3-31-09.doc �Note 7: Technology The variance from budget is due to the following items: Annual fees ISSI charged to Kresge technology grant Computer replacements charged to Kresge technology grant Upgrade printer to network connection not needed $ 15,000 6,000 3,500 Note 8: Communications/Publications Due to the state of the economy several of the items noted below were postponed since they did not directly affect services to members. The variance from budget is due to the following items: 2 Issues of Tips & Tools for non-members Delete 1 issue of Memo to Members Portion of Spring 08 charged to previous year Member Roster not produced Professional photographers not hired Web-Designer, writers and graphic artists not hired Media relations news service not hired $2,500 6,100 2,600 1,000 3,000 9,000 2,000 Note 9: Professional Services The variance from budget is due to legal fees that were less than budget. Note 10: Gain on Sales of Fixed Assets Earl ier th is spring the Detroit office suffered water damage which ruined some furniture and computers. Since all of these items were fully depreciated the insurance proceeds were booked as a gain. The replacement furn iture was not received until late April, so the costs will hit in 2009-10. The insurance proceeds should come close to covering the cost of the furniture. IWilliam Allen Fund This fund supports the members' spring legislative trip to Washington D.C. Major expenses for 2008-09: Directories to incoming Michigan legislative freshman Foundation Center database for FOTH Staff travel to DC, President and Public Policy Fellow $1,932 1,200 2,105 S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2009- 10\6.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab I- Consent Agenda\lntemal Financials Memo 3-31-09.doc �Russell G. Mawby Fund Association Dues & Sponsorships MNA Sponsorship SuperConference Michigan Women's Foundation- Women of Achievement D inner National Center for Family Philanthropy Online service Association ofFundraising Professionals- National Philanthropy Day sponsorship MNA Nonprofit Day sponsorship Governor's Service Award Video $1,000 500 3,600 500 500 2,500 Professional Services The credit to the L3C legal work is due to the $ 15,000 that was available from the Mott research project grant that was used to cover legal expenses incurred in 2007-08 & 2008-09. MNA 2008 Economic Impact Study 50% Due Legal work L3C Legal Work Establishing a Charitable Foundation D inner Mawb Award winner Facing Racism travel expenses $6,328 (9,536) 2,599 $536 1,059 Ruth & Russ Mawby Fund for Kids This fund supports the Y AC summer intern, the Summer Youth Conference and travel for the intern, a Youth Project Associate. Community Foundation Endowment Fund] Total expenses ended the year about $117,000 under budget. Most of this variance is due to the staff time charged to MCFV and Access to Recreation. MCFYP Endowment Fund This fund supports the Y AC Program Associate position. The wages variance from budget is due to a portion of this position being charged to the Community Foundation Endowment Fund as a result of changes in staff roles. $1,500 of the Training & Registration line item is the registration fees for the youth that attended the CMF Annual Conference. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2009- 10\6.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab I - Consent Agenda\lntemal Financials Memo 3-31 -09.doc �orothy Johnson Educational Fund Other Grant $39,000 was used to support the CMF Annual Conference. Riecker Leadership Fund The fund supports 65% the Public Policy Fellow position along with the bulk of this position's travel and other expenses. Other Grants $1,000 of this line item is a grant from Russ Mawby's fund at the Battle Creek Community Foundation. W illiam Richardson Endowment Fund 35% of the fellow's wages are being charged to this endowment fund. Community Foundation Technology Endowment Fund This fund primarily covers the support provided to FIMS sites by Bi ll Nethercut, software consultant. arl Reitz Endowment Fund This fund supports investment educational events for foundation staff and trustees. CMF Core Services Endowment Fund $30,000 was transferred from this fund to CMF Core Services. This represents the 5% spendable income available from this fund on an annual basis. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2009- 10\6.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab I - Consent Agenda\lntemal Financials Memo 3-31 -09.doc �Council of Michigan Foundations Core Services Internal Statement of Activities 4-1-08 to 3-31-09 Revenues Membership Investment Additional Member Contributions Other Grants Conference & Meetings Publications Other Income Investment Earnings Total Revenues Program/Admin Expenses Wages & Benefits Occupancy Telephone Equipment Lease & Maintenance Postage Supplies Insurance Equipment & Furniture Depreciation Technology Dues & Sponsorship Books & Subscriptions Communications/Publications Professional Services T ravel T raining & Seminars Conference & Meetings (Gain)/Loss Sale of Fixed Assets Overhead Allocation to Spec Projects Total Program/Admin 12 Month Budget 2008-09 12 Month Actual 3/31/2009 $ 1,006,000 166,000 25,000 598,000 15,000 2,000 138,000 1,950,000 $ 1,002,209 167,060 22,692 667,786 19,186 3,400 87, 122 1,969,455 1,014,000 68,000 13,000 3,000 20,000 30,000 6,000 975,119 68,551 13,659 3,130 9,372 22,300 3,954 26,746 Note 5 52,630 33,267 4,068 58,189 35,946 46,387 8,324 555,114 {7,972) {1,300) 1,907,484 Note 7 74,000 34,500 5,000 88,000 40,000 63,000 9,000 484,000 {1 ,500) 1,950,000 Grants Challenge Grants Mini-Grants Computer Grants Other Grants Total Grants 0 0 Excess Revenues Over Expenditures 0 61,971 1,224,597 0 1,224,597 61,971 1,224,597 $1,286,568 Beginning Net Assets Excess Rev over Exp. Transfer to Core Endowment Ending Net Assets S:\Finance\Financial Statements\08-09\CMF FS 3-31..09 - Note 1 Note 2 Note 3 Note 4 Note 6 Note 8 Note 9 Note 3 Note 10 �CMF Endow ment Fu nds Consolidated St atem ent of Activities a nd Cha nges in Net A ssets 4-1-08 to 3-31-09 E ndowment Funds Revenues Spendable Income Membership Investment Additional Member Contributions Other Grants Conference Income Publications Other Income Investment Income Total Revenues Russell G Mawby Johnson Community Alle n Maw by Fund Educational Foundation Fund Fund For Kids Fund 8.600 $ 73.000 $ 42.000 $ Comm Fdn MCFYP Endowment Endowme nt 49.000 $ 358.000 $ 57,000 $ (1,100) 125 Riecke r Fund Tec hnology Fund 56.000 $ Richa rdson Public Policv 24,000 $ Re itz Invest. Education 22.000 $ 2,600 $ 12 Month CMF Core 30,000 $ 1.100 23,225 2.375 28.743 Program/Admln Expens es Wages & Benefits Occupancy Telephone Equipment Lease & Maintenance Postage Supplies Insurance Equipment & Furniture (461 .493) 387.133 (264.725) 199.500 (296,660) 247,660 4 ,729 {2.2f.i1 .067) 1.875.424 (361,561) 304,436 (358.172) 301 .072 (143.374) 119,374 33.259 (111 .959) 89.959 (13,640) 11,040 722.200 1,100 3.500 36. 100 (145,247 (4.472,040 115,247 3.694.012 22.055 ~ 202.738 32.763 1,305 1,894 1,285 295.544 1,000 4 ,484 61 181 388 895 775 2,150 11.710 1,932 11,000 14,100 978 47.261 35.595 26.600 75,100 31,000 9,660 58,893 470,490 95,100 622,200 8 1.600 8 1,600 119.600 139,600 1.000 235 61 722.200 24.625 1,360 28.743 1,360 (54.142) 43.167 Budget ~ Total 55 15 1 37 198 52 252 975 8.600 100 2,9 10 400 100 234 39 705 4 ,682 25.305 10.554 3.637 3,555 7,6 10 255,709 2.100 1,857 4 3,003 362.000 1.500 200 1.100 D•~clatlon Technology Dues & Sponsorship Books & Subscriptions 1,932 Communications/Publications Professional Services Travel Training & Seminars Conference & Meeting Total Program/Admin 1.200 2.105 5,719 1,594 225 2.565 41 135 8.139 16.488 GRANTS Challenge Grants M ini-Grants Computer Grants Other Grants Total Grants 49,425 59,435 15,037 13.023 1,215 175 50.624 15,037 22.055 500 4.000 20.000 10,000 10,000 Excess Revenues Over Expenditures (51.306) Beginning Net Assets Trans1er from Other Funds Excess Revenues over Expenditures Ending Net Assets 212,485 (258.935) (286,660) (2.131,133) (347,439) (134,41 1) (11 2,01 4) (13,640) (14 5,247 (4.246, 102 1.044,771 1,207.662 8,877,491 1.425.335 1,436,583 568.371 456,336 56,959 575,651 17,681 ,330 17,681.330 59,906 486.621 $ 152,579 $1 .333.065 300.935 $743.836 335,660 $872,002 2.489,133 $6,388,358 404,439 407,696 $1,02 8,887 158,41 1 134.014 $409.960 $322,322 16,240 $40,719 175,247 $400,404 4.968,302 12.713,028 $17,681.330 $ 1,020.896 (351,696) 30,000 30,000 1,819,686 S :\Finance\Financial Statements\08-09\CMF FS 3-31-09 (4 13,62 1) 2,600 2.600 39.000 39,000 �May 22, 2009 Memo to: Melonie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board ofTrustees From: Rachel Mraz, CMF Trustee and Investment Committee Member and David R. Lindberg, Vice President Finance & Administration Re: March 31, 2009 Investment Report The following Resolution is presented for consideration: RESOLVED that the March 31, 2009 Investment Report be accepted as presented. On a quarterly basis, the combined Investment Committees for the Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF), Midwest Community Foundations' Ventures (MCFV), Learning to Give (LTG) and the Michigan AIDS Fund (MAF), meet to review the investment performance for the operating and permanent endowment funds. New Business On May 18,2009, the Investment Committee reviewed and approved the enclosed report. Since the October 13, 2008, CMF Board meeting, the Investment Committee has addressed the following items: After careful analysis the committee moved the majority of the CMF Endowment Pool Investments into the TIFF Multi Asset Fund. The CMF Executive Committee approved this recommendation on February 9, 2009. Putting the bulk of the CMF Endowment funds in the TIFF Multi-Asset Fund, which has had very strong performance numbers over the last year, has allowed CMF to access investment strategies typically available to only larger endowment fund s. The remaining balance of approximately $800,000 on CMF 's $1 million Commonfund private equity commitment has been left in the standard asset allocation pool. CMF also holds a $3 million endowment fund for the Learning to Give/LEAGUE project that is scheduled to be turned over to the LEAGUE by 2010. Due to the entry and exit fees for the TIFF Multi Asset Fund this endowment fund will remain invested in standard asset allocation funds that CMF has used in the past. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2009- l 0\6.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab l -Consent Agenda\lnvestment Report Memo 3-3 l-09.doc �Council of Michigan Foundations Investment Report March 31, 2009 Inv es tment Balanc e 3/31 /2009 Actual Asset Allocation Money Mkt Targeted Asset Allocation Money Mkt. Operating Funds CMF Operating & Special Project s $2,960,431 100% 100% MCFV Special Projects $3,356,354 100% 100% KYIP Fund $5,271,474 100% 100% Michigan AIDS Fund $264,055 100% 100% Learning to Give $179,737 100% 100% Note: All operating funds are invested in money market accounts. CMF Combined Endowment Pool -Asset Mix Market Value Equities Fixed Income Real Estate Alternatives Cash Total $7,193,423 2,926,351 289 ,878 1,553,957 106,862 12,070,471 % 59.6% 24.2% 2.4% 12.9% 0.9% 100.0% Endowment Pool Compound Annual Rate of Return One Year Three Year Five Year 10 Year A c tual Investment Return -26.48% N/A N/A N/A Blended B enchmark -26.30% -7.69% -1.43% 1.16% The CMF Endowment Pool has been broken down into two separate pools, a standard pool and an alternative pool. The asset mix listed above represents the combination of both pools. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2009-10\6.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab 1 - Consent Agenda\lnvest Report 3-31 -09 �Council of Michigan Foundations Investment Report March 31, 2009 CMF Standard Endowment Pool -Asset Mix Market Value LargeCap MidCap SmaiiCap International Real Estate Equity Trust Total Equities $176,010 58,724 35,449 66,504 Cash Equivalents Short Bond Fund Bond Fund High Yield Bond Total Cash & Fixed Income Grand Total $ Actual % Target % 336,687 27.1% 9.0% 5.5% 10.2% 0.0% 52% 37% 9% 6% 13% 5% 70% 166,405 61 ,967 60,379 24,377 313,128 25.6% 9.5% 9.3% 3.8% 48% 0% 13% 13% 5% 30% 649,815 100% 100% Standard Endowment Pool Compound Annual Rate of Return One Year Three Year Five Year 10Year Actual Investment Return -26.48% -7.34% -0.62% 2.01 % Blended Benchmark -26.30% -7.69% -1 .43% 1.16% S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2009-10\6.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab 1 -Consent Agenda\lnvest Report 3-31-09 �Learning to Give Investment Report March 31, 2009 LTG Endowment Fund -Asset Mix Market Value LargeCap Mid Cap SmaiiCap International Real Estate Equity Trust Total Equities $783,586 206 ,890 112,593 276 ,753 Cash Equivalents Short Bond Fund Bond Fund High Yield Bond Total Cash & Fixed Income Grand Total Actual % $ Target % 1,379,822 37.7% 9.9% 5.4% 13.3% 0.0% 66.3% 39% 10% 6% 14% 0% 69% 24 ,032 281 ,349 283 ,768 111 ,678 700 ,827 1.2% 13.5% 13.6% 5.4% 33.7% 0% 13% 13% 5% 31% 2,080,649 100% 100% Endowment Pool Compound Annual Rate of Return One Year Three Year Five Year 10Year Actual Investment Return -27.67% N/A N/A N/A Lipper Median Benchmark -26.30% -7.69% -1.43% 1.16% Investment of this new endowment fund took place in May 2006 This fund was established with a $3,000,000 grant from the W.K . Kellogg Foundation S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2009-10\6.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab 1 -Consent Agenda\lnvest Report 3-31-09 �Council of Michigan Foundations Investment Performance Comparison 12/31/2008 Actual Ret urns Period Ending Quarter One Year Blended Benc hmark -14.01% CMF Cambridge Pooled Pool Funds (Median) -16.14% -1 3.40% TIFF Multi A sset -1 4.04% -24.37% -26.28% -26.30% -25.98% -3.91% -3.88% -2.00% -0.70% Five Years 0.89% 1.24% 3. 10% 4.62% Ten Years 2 .07% 2.68% 4.60% 6.09% Period Ending One Yr Three Y rs -37.2% -8.4% -37.0% -8.4% -36.8% -9.4% 5.2% 5.5% -43.4% -7.4% 0.1% 2.2% Five Y rs -1 .7% -2.2% -1 .0% 4.7% 1.7% 2.7% T hree Years Bench Marks Wilshire 5000 S&P 500 Russell2500 LB Aggregate MSCI EAFE CPI- U Qt r Ending -22.9% -21.9% -26.3% 4.6% -20.0% -3.9% Asset Categories Cambridge Poo l US Equities International Equities Fixed Income (less high yield) Cash Other Total Other - Detail Real Estate Hedge Funds Distressed Securities Arbitrage Venture Capital Private Equity Oil & Gas Partnerships High Yield Bonds Other NMAA Absolute Return Commodities Other A sset Allocation CMF Target 21.1% 17.2% 18.3% 5.6% 37.8% 100.0% 3.8% 12.9% 2.4% 5.4% 2.0% 4. 1% 1.5% 0.3% 0.6% 1.0% 3.8% 37.8% 55.0% 14.0% 26.0% 5.0% 100.0% Ten Yrs -0.6% -1.4% 4.1% 5.6% 0.8% 2.5% TIFF Multi Asset 53.3% Includes Inti & Resourc 18.6% 28.1% 100.0% 2.9% 5.0% 1.6% 5.0% 12.1% 3.5% 8.0% 28.1% • Represents the latest return numbers available from Cambridge S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2009-1 016.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab 1 -Consent Agendallnvest Report 3-3109 �May 22,2009 Memo to: Melanie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board ofTrustees From: Phil Peters, Audit Committee Chair David Lindberg RE: CMF & Supporting Organizations March 31, 2009 & 2008 Audit Report RESOLVED that the CMF & Supporting Organizations March 31, 2009 & 2008 Audit Report, as recommended by the CMF Audit Committee, be accepted. On May 18, 2009, the Audit Committee met with the audit staff from Rehmann Robson and approved the attached audit report. Differences between Internal Statements and Audited Statements Due to the multi-year grant commitments received from Kellogg for their additional membership dues and Skillman for the Detroit office we will have a difference between the internal and audited statements for CMF Core Operations until both of these grants end. The accounting rules require multi-year grants to be booked as revenue in the year the grant commitment was made, even though the revenue supports future year activities. Grant Kellogg Additional Member Contribution ($750,000 for 2005-06 to 2009-20 10) Skillman Detroit Office Support ($75,000 2006-07 to 2008-09) Additional Revenue Booked Per Internal Statements $150,000 25,000 For audit report purposes both grants were booked as revenue in 2005-06. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2009- 10\6.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab 2- Treasurer's & Audit Report\Audit 3-31-09.doc �Combined Statement of Financial Position Cash The decrease from the prior year is due to the reduction in cash held for special projects, primarily the Kellogg Early Childhood Investment Corporation and Access to Recreation grants. Investments The reduction is due to the market loss incurred in 2008-09. G ra nts Receivable The decrease from the prior year is due to the following items. G rant Access to Recreation Early Childhood Investment Corporation AIR 3-31-09 $0 0 AIR la2 3-31-08 $1,475,000 2,950,000 G ra nts Pavable $1,300,000 of the decrease is due to an outstanding grant due to the Early Childhood Investment Corporation as of3-31-08 that was paid in 2008-09. Other Liabilities The decrease from the prior year is due to the 2008-09 membership dues collected prior to April 1, 2008. Net Assets - Unrestricted- Undesignated The accounting rules require that investment losses can not result in temporarily restricted assets becoming negative, so due to the large losses in 08-09 for the endowment funds, $1,428,476 in losses were reclassified from temporarily restricted to unrestricted net assets. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2009- 10\6.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab 2- Treasurer's & Audit Report\Audit 3-31-09.doc �Net Assets- Unrestricted- Board Designated The decrease is due to the investment losses in 2008-09. Net Assets- Temporarily Restricted The decrease from the prior year is due to reduction in balances of the following special projects. Grant Access to Recreation Early Childhood Investment Corporation KYIP Learning to Give League support Balance 3-31-09 $2,177,457 0 3,918,948 0 Balance 3-31-08 $4,696,685 3,060,500 4,741,580 725,000 Combined Statement of Activities Grant Support The increase from the prior year is primarily due to grants for the Office of the Foundation Liaison Phase III project that was renewed in 2008-09. Investment Income Fell due to the drop in money market rates in 2008-09, which ended below 1%. Net Realized/Unrealized Gains on Investments Stock market crash accounts for the large losses in 2008-09. Grant Expense $1.3 million of the decrease is due to the ECIC grant that ended in 2008-09. $4 million of the decrease is due to the reduction in grants from the Access to Recreation project. S:\Boards and Committees\CMF\Board\2009- 10\6.4.09 Meeting Materials\Tab 2- Treasurer's & Audit Report\Audit 3-31 -09.doc �~4 ~ehmann Rehmann Robson 2330 East Paris Ave., SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Ph: 616.975.4100 Fx: 616.975.4400 www.rehmann.com May 22, 2009 To the Board of Directors Council of Michigan Foundations We have audited the consolidated financial statements of the Council ofMichigan Foundations and Supporting Organizations (the "Organization") for the year ended March 31, 2009, and have issued our report thereon dated May 22, 2009. Professional standards require that we prov ide you with the following information related to our audit. Our Responsibility Under Auditing Standards Generally Accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards As stated in our engagement letter dated April 24, 2009, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to express an opinion about whether the consolidated financial statements prepared by management with your oversight are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U nited States of America. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of your responsibilities. As part of our audit, we considered the internal control of the Organization. Such considerations were solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of Organization's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants. However, the objective of our tests was not to provide an opinion on compliance w ith such provisions. Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit We performed the audit according to the planned scope and timing previously communicated to you in our engagement letter and our meeting about planning matters on April 27, 2009. CPAs • Business Consultants • Financial Advisors l£1i!ifN I ~Tli lt NA110NAL �Page 2 Significant Audit Findings Qualitative Aspects ofAccounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. In accordance with the terms of our engagement letter, we will advise management about the appropriateness of accounting policies and their application. The significant accounting policies used by the Organization are described in Note I to the financial statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during the year, except for implementing the disclosure requirements of FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value Measurements and FASB Staff Position FAS No. 11 7-1, Endowments of Not-for-Profit Organizations: Net Asset Classification of Funds Subject to an Enacted Version of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, and Enhanced Disclosures for All Endowment Funds. We noted no transactions entered into by the Organization during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. There are no significant transactions that have been recognized in the consolidated financial statements in a different period than when the transaction occurred. Accounting estimates are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements prepared by management and are based on management's knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the consolidated financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were: • Management's estimate of the useful lives of depreciable capital assets is based on the length of time it is believed that those assets will provide some economic benefit in the future. • Management's estimate of the allowance for uncollectible receivable balances is based on past experience and future expectation for collection of various account balances. • Management's allocation of certain costs to program and supporting functions 1s based on specific criteria applicable to the specific cost being allocated . • Management's estimate of the fair value of investments is typically obtained from outside sources and applied to individual securities within the portfolio. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. �Page 3 Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in perfonning and completing our audit. Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements The attached schedule summarizes uncorrected misstatements of the consolidated financial statements. Management has determined that their effects are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the consolidated financial statements or the auditor's report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the attached management representation letter dated May 22, 2009. Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult w ith other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a "second opinion" on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the Organization 's financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor's opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the Organization's auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. �Page 4 This information is intended solely for the use of the governing body and management of the Council of Michigan Foundations and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Very truly yours, �Council of Michigan Foundations and Supporting Organizations Comments and Recommendations For the Year Ended March 31, 2009 In planning and perfonning our audit of the consolidated financial statements of the Council of Michigan Foundations and Supporting Organizations (the "Organization") as of and for the year ended March 31, 2009, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered the Organization's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Organization's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness ofthe Organization's internal control. A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the entity's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity's financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control. A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control. Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. Other Matters Bank Statements Bank statements are not received directly by an appropriate level of management or other individual and reviewed prior to routing to the grants manager for reconciliation. Since the grants manager has access to the general ledger and is primarily responsible for processing accounts receivable, this represents an incomplete segregation of incompatible duties. Whi le the risks associated with this issue are partially mitigated by the Vice President of Finance's review of completed bank reconciliations, and periodic review of fmancial information (including general ledger detail), we recommend that the Vice President of Finance receive the monthly bank statements unopened for review prior to submission to the grants manager for reconciliation to the general ledger control account. �Council of M ichigan Fou ndations and Supporting Organizations Schedule of Adjustments Passed (SOAP) For the March 3 1, 2009 Audit In accordance with the provisions of SAS 89, Audil Adj11stmenrs, we have prepared the following schedule of proposed audit adjustments, which we believe are immaterial both individually and in the aggregate. Also in accordance wit h SAS 89, we a re providing this schedule to both management and the audit co mmittee to receive their assurance that they agree that the amounts listed below are not material to the financial statements, either individually or in the aggregate, and do not need to be recorded. Eflect o f Passed Adjustment • Over(Under)Statement Beginning Liabilities Fund Balance Revenue Assets Expenses/ Expenditures Un employm en t Accrual PY overaccrual of unemployment claims payable - no "probable" risk as defined by FASB Stalement No. 5 - $ 31,000 s (3 1,000) s - s Com p ensated Absl•nces Accr u al Unposted prior accrual for compensated absences payable, including FICA taxes payable (25,522) C urrent year change in compensated absences payable and FICA on that balance (II,Ot t) 25,522 ( 11 ,0 11) ln\'estm ents Overstatement of Market Value of Commonfund Investments T otals 33,2 19 33,219 33,2t9 (5,533) (5,478) $ 33,2 t 9 (11 ,011) �Council of Michigan Foundations Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. May22, 2009 M'df\nif' R. (~ll'li.nnr, ("J..Jr Nr\SC() Cl•f}K•nlrion PfAJIKhu:ft,n (i.r"l;hr n. C:h..,ml, t·r.<, V,«(~Juli,-. (;tlrfnJ.u: Plllldll,_.f'F V1me:rina. Owrir..Lb1111 roounJ11.cinn n..n... v;,. c--·i" F"""""';."' Rehmann .Robson r.J.,,. F.li""'-h " · Fre1nnn< ,..,.. C.llmmoni<y r-nundocioo • aa,yr,rr"'"~'""•'·'n.-,c:h.Jir,r-umi~• rhil.urh"''fJ l:r«<r:rid;: S. Upton J<l)~·u~ioltion 2330 East Paris Avenue, SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546 John r..;:QUn.:.. J«nfr/"' Lal in11 ~nur1riuriun Phillip .H. Pet.:n:. Tl'olr~,­ C:hnrl~ ~W-.....orr Murr t•t••ruhuiur. K1iY.:r. S.. C.ullicor. Pmi.J.~t Ccunci1 of Mjchi,sllD Founcl•tions ~IUJIU 1;;, liL-.UU, ja, H~ U.and;,lJ Wid.,~ fuuud~-riuu ~mm ~ ~IVmo\n .:m."t.'l~i'!M.-'PWtl'l;u :.-.,, Andn-. ){, O..k Rrhtl unJ )111ne.• Pliam O.lund~tia>Jl lOOm:>.<!\. Couk Cunk t'M:wity hruucJU4iu·n 1):1vitf t). P~net 1-iuJ,;IAJ• \Vcbl)['r l'vun~T:u i.;.n K.~·"· J. kul~ l\·li'''i Kl.l:amllit(JL• CI.H~~~\\uflir,. FounJ11tiun l 1.. G:.h.C\t l, iii1J: ·'· 'illmnrt' r:r.:ndntinn 1( lfMd A!lan D. G ilm®r (~:nmnrtky Jl1mnrlatiu" filf SrJul:ll~ M1~lnn.-, C;UY.I.r\ .. <:.u, Th..- ,l.;[ cjflm;U\ l•'r•1mdttic~n ~~ rt·ftth 1.. H IUU CL1Ct lc C.t"t'i:k C.:ummunlty l'U\uld.-tlw We are providing this letter in connection wi'th your audit of the statement of financial position of Cquncil of Michigan Foundations and Supporting Organizations as of March 31, 2009 and the related statements of activities, and cash flows for the year then end~d for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position, changes in net assets, and cash flows of the Council of Michiga11 Foundations and Supporting Organizations in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We confinn that we are responsible for the fair presentation in the financial statements of financial position, changes in net assets, and cash flows in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We are also responsible for adopting sound accounting policies, establishing and maintaining effevtive internal control, and preventing and · detecting fraud. We confirm, to the best of our knowledge and belief, as of May 22, 2009, the following representations made to you during your audit. 1. The financial statements referred to above are fairly presented in confonnity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and include all assets and liabilities under the Organization' s controL 2. We have made available to you all- Wr.1ley H. MO&Uftt, Jr. M~kina.; hhand CDtllm\lnlcy Fvl.la<l:•tlt;lf\ a....uc.~..,. CMI' 1\dvi.•'<Y r :.k;nc:!' U.;~•.:hd P, Mr':W ~~Ht"t:TJ ;111d l;hg.lt l": Yria F:•mfl)l Ft.tiRl.,ion J),,,f,J K. ,.,,~,, ')'l"'.l'"'"h l'uu..J t;:.n.,l Pui n ~'Mr.<ta~c.rn T>:tiM roruT~i)!' F:tun<Uiciun 'l'b.)nus 5. J'nl"''::r:r Ptlr~ Fa.r.ily l:DUndftlon O t vid S.. Scbri:~." a. Financial records and re lated data. b. Minutes ofthe meetings of'Board of Directors or summaries of actions of recent meetings for which m inutes have not yet been prepared. Ttu· ~.-fvl..7i~tn f ttunt.blu•t Suorli n~ K. Spt."in·r 3. There have been no communications from regulatory agencies concerning noncompliance with, or deficienc ies in, financial reporting practices. 4. There are no material transactions that have not been properly recorded in the accounting records underlying tile financial statements. W.K. Kelltlg~ t-'uundaduo Mat)(ntN ~- 1 1 unn ~utr H.uy 1'\... :uad. M,11~~1· 1"). "lhw&le~ Pnun.dnrjan ,._mond• v., Owoo Mlllrr, <:.r.tir4d, l'u<Jilt.J< or.J :1\.uro:, l', L,C. C:.hrU:tiAn A.Vt.•IJ~ut:·.c 'M'QJrrrvf Art:w Cumm unt ~)' lluuud,cj~,~o~, /);ucic=! J, Wy:wt t,,..,c- Fr,undarlon J~Wl•"1 Mai(l Office: On" Suuda Hilrhu r A'"• Suicc .l. Grnnd H ;r.ven, MJ 49~t7 p 616.842.7080 £ 616.8~2.1.760 Soucheut Nlc bignn Oft1cu: 1on T..lon C <ncrc Drivt, sv;t~ l51l. D~croic. Mt 48207 p ~ l .~.~lll'i.:24 -i-1 f 313.566.2445 w w ..•. mkhi_,;anfo undi<tivn~.Of& �Rehmann Robson May22, 2009 Page2 of4 5. We believ11: the effects of the uncorrected financ ial statement misstatements summarized in the attached schedule are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to t he financial statements taken as a whole. 6. We acknowledge our responsibility for tl1e design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud. 7. We have no knowledge of any fraud or suspected fraud affecting the Organization involving: a. Management, b. Employee] who have significant roles in interna1 control, or c_ Others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. 8. We have no knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the Organ]zation received in communications from employees, fomter employees, analysts, regulators, or others. 9. The Organization has no plans or intentions that may materially affect the carrying value or classification of assets, liabilities, or net asset balance~. 10. The following, if any, have been properly recorded or disclosed in the financial statements; a. Related party transactions~ including revenues, expenses, loans, transfers, !easing arrangements, and guarantees, and amounts receivable from or payable to related parties. For the purposes of this letter, related parties mean affiliated or financially interrelated organizations; entit ies for which investments are accounted for by tho equity method by the organization; trusts for the benefit of employees, such as pension trusts that are managed by or under the trusteeship of management or the governing board; members of d1e organization's management and governing board and their immediate families; and other parties with which the organization may deal if one party controls or can significantly influence the management or operating po licies of the other to an extent that one of the transacting parties might be prevented from fully pursuing its own separate interests, such as significant contributors. Another party also is a related party if it can s ignificantly influence the manage ment or operating policies of the transacting parties or if it has an ownership interest in one of the transacting parties a11d can s ign ificantly influence the other to an extent that one or more of the tr-ansacting parties might be prevented from fully pursuing its own separatt! interests. Additional related parties may include certain national and locaJ affiliates and a separate entity w ith officers or directors also on the nonprofit orsanization's governing board. b. Guarantees, whether written or oral, under which the Organi7..ation is contingently liable. c. A ll accounting estimat~::s that could be material to the financial statements, including the key factors and significant assumptions underlying those estimates, and we believe the estimates are reasonable in the circumstancE:s. �Rehmann Robson May 22,2009 Page 3 of 4 11. There are no estimates that may be subject to a material change in the near tenn that have not been properly disclo.sed in the financial statements. We understand t hat near term means the period within one year of the date of the financial statements. In addition, we have no knowledge of concentrations existing at the date of the financial statements that make the Organizatio n vulnerable to the risk of severe impact that have not been properly disclosed in the financial statements. 12. We are responsible for compliance w ith the laws, regulations, and provisionS of contracts and grant agreements applicable to us: and we have identified and disclosed to you all laws, regulations and pmvis ions of contracts and grant agreements that we believe have a. direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts, or other financial data s ignificant to the audit objectives. 13. Co unc il ofMichigan Foundations and Supporting Organizations are exempt organizations under Section S01(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Any activities of which we are aware that would jeopardize the Organization 's tax- exempt status, and all activities subject to tax on unrelated business income or excise or other tax, have been disclosed to you. All required filings with tax authorities arc up-to-date. 14. There are n~ a. Violations or possible violations of laws and regulations aod provisions of contracts and grant agreements whose effects should be considered for disclosure in the financial statements, as a basis for recording a loss cont ingency, or for reporting on noncompliance. b. We a.re not aware of any pending or threatened litigation, c laims, or assessment~ or unasserted claims or assessments that are required to be accrued or disclosed in the financial statements in accordance with financial Accounting Standards Board (fASB) Statement No. 5, and we have not consulted a lawyer concerning litigation, claims, or assessments. c. Other liabilities or gain or loss contingencies that are required to be accrued or disclosed by FASB Statement No.5. d. Designations of net assets disclosed to you that were not properly authorized and reclassifications of net assets that have not been properly reflected in the approved, financial statements. or 15. The Organization has satisfactory tit le to all owned assets, and there are no Liens or encumbrances 011 such assets nor bas any asset been pledged. J6. We have complied with all restrictions on resources (including donor restrictions) and all aspects of contractual and grant agreements that would have a material effect on the financial statements in the event of noncom pi iance. This includes complying with donor requirements to maintain a specific asset composition necessary to satisfy their restrictions. �Rehmann Robson May 22~2009 Page4 of4 No events have occurred subsequent to the statement of financial position date and through the date of this letter that would require adjustment to, or disclosure in, the financial statement~. Signature Signature Title Title � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-06-04_Financials Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-06-04 board book financials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-06-04 board book financials. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50774 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-06-04 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/adfc8f2959b83877a207a5ce38634e20.pdf 6444cff1b566ae9b59d828f161e71b47 PDF Text Text June 3, 2009- REVISED Memo to: Melonie Colaianne, Chairperson, and Members of the Board ofTrustees From: Carol Goss, Chairperson, Governance Committee Re: Governance Committee Roles and Responsibilities The Governance Committee will be meeting the week of the June Board Meeting to consider the following Resolution. We are sharing it as a draft at this time but look forward to discussing it with you at the Board Meeting on June 4. RESOLVED that the following Governance Committee Roles and Responsibilities with Nominations Policy, as submitted on June 4, 2009 by the Governance Committee, be adopted as proposed. I. CMF GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES In accordance with Article V. Section 2* in the CMF Bylaws, the governance committee is a standing committee of the Board of Trustees and its role is to recruit board members and to ensure that members are equipped with the proper tools and motivation to carry out their responsibilities. Additionally the governance committee is responsible for the ongoing review and recommendations to enhance the quality and future viability of the board of trustees. I. Responsibilities a. Board Composition 1. Identify potential board member candidates as outlined in the attached CMF Nomination Policy, explores their interest and availability for board service and maintains information about candidates. 11. Make nominations in accordance with the bylaws for members of the Board ofTrustees, officers and executive committee members. 111. Update board member job descriptions and work to recruit a board that has the skills and expertise needed to meet the organization's objectives. IV. Lead in assessing current and anticipated needs related to board composition, determining the knowledge, attributes, skills, abilities, influence, and access to resources the board will need to consider in order to accomplish future work of the board. v. Review annually the Roles and Responsibilities of the Governance Committee b. Board Knowledge 1. Ensure that new board members receive appropriate orientation and have adequate materials and understanding of their roles and responsibilities. 11. Design and implement an ongoing program of board infonnation and education. 111. Ensure that appropriate communications are taking place in order to keep board members fully apprised of activities. �c. Board Effectiveness t. Conduct periodic examination of how the Board is functioning, how board members communicate, and whether the board is fulfilling its responsibilities and living up to the organization's objectives. 11. Provide ongoing counsel to the board chair on steps to enhance board effectiveness. 111. Regularly review the board' s practices regarding member participation, conflict of interest, etc., and suggests improvements as needed. IV. Evaluate board members and determine their el igibility for reelection d. Board Leadership t. Review policy guidelines, practices and bylaws and propose revisions as needed. 11. Lead the board in regularly reviewing and updating the board' s statement of its roles and areas of responsibility, and what is expected of individual board members. 111. Lead in succession planning, taking steps to recruit and prepare future board members. IV. Nominate board members for election as board officers. v. In cooperation with the board chair, work with each board member to assess his or her continuing interest in board membership and term of service and to identify the appropriate role he or she might assume on behalf of the organization. *Section 2. Governance Committee. The Governance Committee shall be appointed by the Chairman with the approval or subsequent ratification of the Board and shall be comprised of not less than three (3) nor more than five (5) members, a majority of whom shall be Trustees whose terms of office do not expire at the next annual meeting. II. CMF BOARD OF TRUSTEES NOMINATION POLICY The CMF Board of Trustees seeks to recruit individuals as Board members who are committed to the organization' s mission and governing process. CMF will seek diversity among its Board ofTrustees to ensure that a range of perspectives, opinions, and experiences is recognized and accessed in achieving its mission. Foundations represented on the board will encompass a variety of philanthropic organizations of diverse asset sizes and from different geographic regions. CMF will promote diversity in expertise, physical ability, national origin, ethnicity, race, culture, generation, religion, educational background, sexual orientation, gender identity and with different skills, abilities, lifestyles and beliefs in recruiting its Board of Trustees. Qualifications of Candidates: All potential candidates for nomination to the CMF Board of Trustees shall meet the qualifications as outlined in the CMF Bylaws, Article III; Section 2. Additionally CMF Board seeks out candidates who possess the following characteristics: a) Demonstrated passion for the mission. b) Reflect the diversity of cultures, abilities, family structure, race, socio-economic status and geography of our service area. c) Support the board governing structure and can meet board commitment expectations. d) Will engage in deliberative and collegial decision-making. �e) Are committed to their stewardship responsibilities. f) Knowledge of CMF systems, organization development, change management, strategic thinking, organizational growth, or strategic legal and nonprofit issues. Nomination Process: In accordance with CMF Bylaws Article III; Section 5, the Governance Committee shall nominate for election to the Board of Trustees one person for each member of the Board whose tern1 expires at the next annual meeting. On or before forty-five (45) days prior to the annual meeting, notice of the annual meeting and a proxy listing all persons nominated for election made by the Committee shall be mailed or sent by electronic transmission)o each member. Any member, upon the second of another member, may nominate other individuals for election as Trustees. Written notice by the nominating and seconding members shall be delivered to the Governance Committee at CMF's office not later than thirty (30) days prior to the annual meeting. Election of such Trustees shall be by plurality vote. Proxies shall be returned personally, by mail, or by electronic transmission to CMF's office not later than the day before the date fixed for the annual meeting. If there are nominations of more persons than there are Trustees to be elected, no proxy shall be valid unless it casts votes for a number of persons equal to the number ofTrustees to be elected. Notwithstanding in any other provision the CMF Bylaws to the contrary, members whose proxies are cast as herein above provided, shall be deemed present at the annual meeting. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-06-04_Governance-Committee Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-06-04 board book governance committee Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-06-04 board book governance committee. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50775 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-06-04 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/83f3c66f97b345ff87223f385c091b00.pdf 59090833979ada08d888ad665a2f4d04 PDF Text Text Tab 3 May 26,2009 Memo to: Melanie Colaianne, Chairperson and Members of the Board of Trustees From: John Colina, Chair, Membership Committee, & Jeri Fischer, Membership & Special Projects Director Re: Membership Report The Membership Committee met on May 18, 2009 by conference call pursuant to written notice duly given. Committee members present in addition to Mr. Colina were Tammy Bailey, Janet Bauer, Caroline Chambers, Libby Cherin and Betsy Upton Stover. Staff present included Kimberly Burton, Rob Collier, Jeri Fischer, Susan Howbert and Dave Lindberg. The following Resolutions are presented for consideration and action. I. New Members We are pleased that the following three members have submitted the appropriate membership information and meet CMF's criteria for membership. RESOLVED that the following grantmakers be approved for membership: Chelsea-Area Wellness Foundation, Chelsea Amy Heydlauff, executive director • Newly formed private foundation from the sale of Chelsea Community Hospital with a $25 million endowment to make grants to improve the health and well ness of residents of Chelsea, Manchester, Stockbridge, Grass Lake, Dexter, Gregory and Munith. Ralph C. Wilson Foundation, Grosse Pointe Farms Mary Owen, executive director • Created in 1954 by Ralph C. Wilson Jr. who is founder and owner of the Buffalo Bills with assets of $645,000 and grantmaking of $ 1.5 million to health care, education and social services organizations. Rejoined. Lovelight Foundation, Ann Arbor Julie F. Cummings, president and Peg Talburtt, CEO • Newly formed family foundation with assets of $1 million; first grants to be made by December; www.lovelightfoundation.org. II. Metrics As a result of the discussion at the last Board Meeting, the Membership Committee is proposing that four metrics, as incorporated in the following resolution, be approved for use in assessing our work during the year. These metrics have been developed based on the challenging economic times we are all facing and an analysis of our current membership. �Membership Report May 2009 RESOLVED that the following metrics for Membership be approved: • 100% of members contacted by volunteers per Retention Campaign • 100% of members contacted by staff • Gain of nine members with a projected $29,000 in membership dues • Loss of fourteen members with a projected loss of $31 ,000 in membership dues III. Membership Renewals and Retention Requests for membership renewals have been sent. See the Activity Summary below for data on renewals. The Phone Retention Campaign is well underway. A full report on contacts will be available by the end of June. The purpose of the calls is to thank each member for membership and share the value we find from being a member of this association - especially in tough economic times. Volunteers are reaching out to members, finding they often have to leave a message. Comments range from, "It's so nice to hear from a colleague by phone" to "If we have any needs, we'll be in touch." A sample contact sheet follows: Council of Michigan Foundations Membership Retention Action Plan - Member Contact Report Member Organization:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Main Contact Name & Title- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Phone: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Email:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Suggested Script 1. I am calling as a member and trustee of the Council of Michigan Foundations. 2. Thank you for your membership. 3. How are things going at your foundation? 4. How can we help you? Any ways we can be helpful? What CMF Does • Advocates for a legislative and regulatory environment that supports grantmaking. • Educate grantmakers about effective practice. • Increase the number of grantmaking organizations in Michigan • Lead the creation of collaborative responses to critical community needs �Membership Report May 2009 • • Network grantmakers with each other and with grantseekers Promote the story of grantmaking and grantmakers to the public What CMF Offers • 60 educational events • Face to face meetings, conference calls and Webinars for your conven ience • Memo to Members, E-News, News Alerts & other communications • Specialized information searches 5. There are several upcoming events, resources & legislative work that may be of interest to you. (Only m en tion these item s as appropriate.) Fo r Family F ounda tions: • 6 regional meetings on investments, web-based communications & the environment Moving Family Foundation In vestments Forward in a Challenging Economy, May 20, Grand Rapids Moving Family Foundation Investments Forward in a Challenging Economy, June 3, Ann Arbor Moving Family Foundation In vestments Forward in a Challenging Economy, June 11 , Saginaw Family Foundations- Using Technology to Connect, September 15, Ann Arbor Family Foundations- Using Technology to Connect, September 23, Grand Rapids Family Foundations- Using Technology to Connect, September 29, Midland • Creating & Managing a Family Foundation, 3rd edition publication, Free to Members For C ommunity Foundations: • COF Fundamentals 10 1 program- three-day Community Foundation Fundamentals Course is designed specifically to help staff and board members quickly comprehend the essential fundamentals to enhance their organization's operations and effectiveness. To pics discussed will include: History of the community foundation movement. Basic information on governance. Resource development and donor relations. Key legal and legislative issues. Information on grantmaking, community leadership and responsibilities. • National Standards re-compliance assistance Fo r C o rpor ate F oundations & G iving Progr a m s: • Kimberly Burton, V .P. of Corporate Services will be meeting personally with each of our corporate foundations and corporate give programs during the upcoming year to learn first hand how CMF can become a greater resource to our members. For All Mem bers : • Annual Conference in partnership with Independent Sector provides additional networking and educational opportunities L egislative Issues: • Extend the Charitable IRA Rollover including Community Foundation Donor Advised Funds as eligible recipients. �Membership Report May 2009 • • Replace the two-tiered excise tax on private foundation investment earnings with a revenue neutral flat tax. Working with the state to maximize the potential of the Federal Stimulus Package in our local communities Summary/Notes of Conversation: Completed by_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date_ _ _ _ _ _ __ IV. Activity Summary for period Aprill, 2009 through May 26, 2009 Memberships at 411 /09 New Members Dropped Membership at 5/26/09 Renewals# Renewal% Revenue (renewals & new) Additional # Additional $ Dues Reduction from 2008-09 Lost 17 members Gained 3 members 372 3 @ $5,500 17 358 202 56% $549,750 13 $ 7,100 $ 62,750 of a budgeted $99,000 $ 16,900 $ 5,500 V. Dropped Members 17 members have been dropped representing a loss of $16,900 in potential membership dues. Organization Type W hy Drop Revenue Lost AT&T Bonisteel Foundation David A. Brandon Foundation The Herbert and Junia Doan Fdn. CGP FF FF FF Fibre Converters Foundation, Inc. Grand Rapids Jaycees Foundation Granger Foundation Kaufman Foundation Kelly Services, Inc. Foundation Charles W. Loosemore Foundation FrederickS . & Lezlynne P. Moore FF The Preede Foundation CRPF PUBF FF FF CFPF FF FF FF No response in attempts to contact Responded, no interest No response in attempts to con tact Doan FF a CMF member, no need for both memberships Responded, no interest No response in attempts to contact No response in attempts to contact No response, vic. of Madoff scandal No response in attempts to contact Responded, no interest Responded, no interest Responded, no interest $3,000 1, 100 500 1,100 500 500 3,000 1,000 300 1,100 500 300 �Membership Report May 2009 Dropped Members continued Organization Type Why Drop The NateS. and Ruth B. Shapero Fdn Turn 2 Foundation, Inc. U.S. Trust, Bank of America The Valenti Foundation The Bill & Sally Wildner Foundation FF FF CGP FF FF Responded, no interest, few assets No interest, office in NYC No interest Responded, no interest Responded, no interest VI. Summary of current membership Private: 201 Family Foundations Independent Foundations 147 54 95 Community: Foundations Affiliates Donor-Advised Funds 53 34 8 Foundations Giving Programs 22 37 Corporate: 15 17 Public: Foundations Donor-Advised Funds Out-of-State Associate: Private Foundations Totals: 16 1 9 9 358 358 Revenue Lost 300 1,100 1,400 900 300 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-06-04_Membership-Report Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-06-04 board book membership report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-06-04 board book membership report. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50776 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-06-04 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5d79c0790f7f9083f1309da17b1d8bf9.pdf f7e63e8106074d2fb493516a4c7f5d2b PDF Text Text CMF Council of Michigan Foundations Philanthropy ~ Michigan · ._.., Serving grantmakers. Advancing giving. PROJECT SUMMARY THE OPPORTUNITY In a time when foundations are being asked to do more, are subject to ongoing scrutiny and threats of government regulation, philanthropy needs to define its value, share stories of impact and equip influential champions. Research conducted in 2006 by PAl indicates that foundations are isolated from influential Americans- the 12% of adults engaged as executives or board members in civic and community organizations. More than 60% of these Americans feel uninformed about the work of foundations and only 15% can give an example of foundation i mpact on their community. Further compounding the problem is the way foundations are perceived and described by the media. According to PAl, 98.6% of media coverage about foundations between 1990 and 2004- nearly 40,000 stories -was transactional in nature, focused on grants awarded and money exchanged versus the benefits or impact of foundation activity. Michigan's philanthropic sector is uniquely positioned to respond to this opportunity through the 3D project because of its well networked members; history of partnering with the public, private and non-profit sectors and higher education to leverage change; engagement in policy reform supported by CMF's Public Policy Committee and Fellow and the Office of Foundation Liaison; and innovative communications about its work. VISION, GOAL & OBJECTIVES Vision: For influentia l leaders in Michigan's public, private and nonprofit sectors and higher education to appreciate the value of and seek partnerships with foundations to solve critical issues in our state. Goal: To design and test a new model for communicating foundations' unique value to influential leaders. Objectives: Engage foundation trustees- influential leaders themselves- as champions Test a new process for deploying key messages to influentials- about foundations' unique contributions and through CMF and participating foundations' trustees and other communications Develop a model for on-going use by CMF and member foundations ROLE OF PARTICIPATING FOUNDATIONS CMF will serve as the lead 3D project manager and an active participant in the process working alongside each partner foundation. To start, each foundation will select a senior staff member to serve as a project liaison to CMF. From there, project liaisons will participate by: Attending Meetings Orientation Webinar Briefing for CEOs and project liaisons on results of trustee interviews Workshop to refine message framework and messages and plan for use of messages by all partners Webinar training on best practices in using the message framework and messages Post-pilot interview and debriefing meeting to refine model for on-going use �Recruiting, Training & Supporting Two Trustees Recruit 2 foundation trustees (residents of M l) to: (1) participate in a pre and a post-pilot interview about where, when and how they talk about the foundations' work with influential leaders in their professional and social networks; and (2) use 3D messages in conversations with such influentials Help CMF as needed in scheduling trustee interviews Train, support and periodically contact trustees regarding their experiences using the messages Enter brief reports of trustee and foundation activities/experiences in on line tracker Providing Information & Stories of Impact Complete online survey about foundations' grantmaking and stories of impact Identify ways foundation will use messages in its communications CMF ROLE In addition to project management, actively participating in the project and supporting project liaisons, CMF will also: Use messages in communications (print, on-line, web and op eds, etc.) targeted to influential leaders Identify speaking/interview opportunities for participating foundation CEOs, trustees and other senior leaders to reach influentia ls (ex. Detroit Chamber conference) Prepare its first State of Philanthropy Report, targeted to influential leaders for publication in spring 2010 Share model and experiences w ith foundation communications leaders, regional associations and other sector leaders through presentations and reports Develop a plan for maintaining t he use of common messages after 3D is completed � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_CMF_2009_BB_2009-06-04_Philanthropy-3D Title A name given to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-06-04 board book philanthropy 3D Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Council of Michigan Foundations. Board of Trustees Description An account of the resource Council of Michigan Foundations 2009-06-04 board book philanthropy 3D. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Council of Michigan Foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50777 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-06-04