Changing the Face of Giving: an Assessment of Youth Philanthropy. INSTITUTION Youth Leadership Inst., CA

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 468 453 CE 083 762

AUTHOR Rosen, Matt; Sedonaen, Maureen TITLE Changing the Face of Giving: An Assessment of Youth Philanthropy. INSTITUTION Youth Leadership Inst., CA. SPONS AGENCY James G. Irvine Foundation, San Francisco, CA. PUB DATE 2001-10-00 NOTE 53p. AVAILABLE FROM For full text: http://www.yli.org/PDF_Youth_Philanthropy.pdf. PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative (142) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Career Education; *Community Services; Donors; Elementary Secondary Education; Endowment Funds; Fund Raising; Geographic Distribution; *Grants; Nonprofit Organizations; Participation; *Philanthropic Foundations; Private Financial Support; Program Descriptions; Volunteers; Youth; Youth Leaders; *Youth Opportunities; *Youth Programs IDENTIFIERS *Philanthropists; *Youth Community Service

ABSTRACT This guide is intended to help stakeholders make decisions about involvement in youth philanthropy (YP). It discusses institutions that encourage youth involvement in philanthropy and shows that most youth philanthropists are drawn from traditional leadership circles, but participation is gradually becoming more diverse. A discussion of geographic distribution reports initiatives are concentrated in a few states. These four core purposes for YP are highlighted: spur youth participation in institutional philanthropy; increase youth involvement in community change; promote youth service and giving; and help youth develop into healthy, productive adults. Common components of YP programs are documented: governing board size; roles of adults; meeting frequency; terms of service; training; and community service. A section on the grantmaking process discusses the granting pool; average grant size; fundraising; typical grant recipients; and outreach and assistance to applicants. YP benefits and beneficiaries are described and these future directions recommended: use YP as a powerful tool for community youth development; expand YP; increase diversity of grantmakers; encourage youth to plan for and fund projects that move beyond service; increase grant size; create endowments to sustain youth grantmaking over time; and increase fundraising by youth. Appendixes include: a table of six YP programs organized by major elements; and descriptions of initiatives and programs. (Contains 13 references and 70 endnotes.) (YLB)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND CENTER (ERIC) DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS his document has been reproduced as BEEN GRANTED BY received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to s.dittri&xe improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1

dieFace Gi'vm

An Assessment of Youth Philanthropy

Written by the Youth Leadership Institute

BEST COPY AVAILABLE ) THE JAMESIRVINE FOUNDATION 0

An Assessment of Youth Philanthropy

Written by the Youth Leadership Institute

THEJAMES,IRVINEFOUNDATION 1 Foreword

2 Executive Summary Overview Findings Recommendations

7 Introduction

Research Methods The Decisionmaking Process 9 Exploring the Emerging Field of Needs Assessments Youth Philanthropy How Grant Decisions Are Made What Is Youth Philanthropy? The Final Decisionmakers General History Institutions that Involve Youth 30 The Benefits of Youth Philanthropy Philanthropy Benefits for Young Grantmakers Youth Philanthropy in Action: Benefits for Adult-Led Organizations Butte County Youth Nexus Benefits for Grantseekers and Grantees Benefits for the Community 15 Demographics of Youth Participating in Philanthropy 34 Recommendations 17 Prevalence and Geographic Distribution of Youth Philanthropy Programs 40Conclusion

Different Purposes of Youth 41Expressions of Gratitude Philanthropy Initiatives Youth Philanthropy at the Youth Leadership Institute Spurring Youth Participation in Institutional Philanthropy Increasing Youth Involvement in 43 Appendices Community Change Appendix A: Youth Philanthropy Programs Promoting Youth Service and Giving Appendix B: Important Initiatives Aiding Youth Development and Programs Appendix C: Survey Recipients by State 21 Mechanics of Youth Philanthropy Appendix D: References Governing Board Size Appendix E: Resources Roles of Adults Meeting Frequency Footnotes Terms of Service Training Community Service

25 The Grantmaking Process Granting Pool Average Grant Size Fundraising Typical Grant Recipients Outreach and Assistance-to-Applicants

Written by Matt Rosen and Maureen Sedonaen Edited by Susan Marquez Owen Designed by Patrick Santana + Paulette Traverso THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION

5 I I he James Irvine Foundation seeks to improve the lives of California's young people, and the nascent field of youth philanthropy has emerged as one of the most promising ways to do so. Already realized in hundreds of programs across the nation, the practice of providing young people a voice and role in grantmaking has rapidly evolved from sporadic experiment to growing movement. Changing the Face of Giving: An Assessment of Youth Philanthropy, a study commissioned by the Irvine Foundation and written by the Youth Leadership Institute, examines youth philanthropy as it is now being practiced and recommends future directions for this new field.

As a way to involve young people in the formal practice of grantmaking, youth philanthropy represents a rich opportunity to develop both youth and philanthropy. Youth philanthropy can enable young people to connect to educational issues in their communities, build their leadership skills, develop creative and analytic thinking, and nourish their community involvement. Moreover, youth philanthropy can prepare young people to give responsibly as future citizens, creating a new generation of philanthropists. The Irvine Foundation seeks to build a ladder of opportunity incorporating youth-led grantmaking into our Communities Organizing Resources to Advance Learning (CORAL) Initiatir, a five-city effort to improve student learning throughout -of school programs.

The Foundation commissioned this report as a way to help nonprofits, government agencies and other foundations focused on1young people to gain an understanding of the spread and depth of the youth philanthropy move: ment:Me wanted to understand both the fundamental mechanics of the process and the more complex issues/ that have emerged as these programs are established. The first comprehensive study on youth-led graintmaking, Changing the Face of Giving surveys the multifaceted practice nationwide-ER-provides recommendations to funders interested in supporting youth philanthropy. We are excited/ about the promise and/possibility of youth philanthropy/and welcome your thoughts on this report-"s, / and e growing movement it examines. 4,441, Dennis A. Collins President & CEO, The James Irvine Foundation October 2001

6 Uwe Summary

Overview ver the past 15 years, a new movement This report: has beguntospread through Explains the different foundations across the country: youth purposes of youth philanthropy. As foundations increasingly philanthropy make youth issues a priority, they are Highlights important asking young peopletohelp make host institutions decisions about what programs should and initiatives receive funds. These efforts not only bring * Documents the common a new perspective to institutional philan- components of youth thropy but help foundations prepare a new philanthropy programs generation of potential grantmakers for work in grantmaking and establish the * Describes the benefits and beneficiaries of leadership qualities and civic engagement youth philanthropy of young people at an early age. There are now more than 250 youth phi- * Recommends future directions for the field. lanthropy initiatives at foundations, community organizations and schools nationwide. It also explores the challenges of involv- Youth-led groups gave between $5 million and ing youth directly in grantmaking,decisions. $10 million in grants in 2000, with some It describes how youth members are recruit- groups routinely awarding grants of $5,000 or ed, how grantseekers are contacted, how more. And young people aren't simply acting needs are assessed, and how grant decisions as advisors to adults; most youth philanthropy are made. initiatives give young people the final authori- In researching this report, YLI staff inter- ty in awarding grants. viewed adults and youth involved in youth Recognizing the importance of this philanthropy initiatives and sat in on some emerging field, The James Irvine Foundation grantmaking meetings. We reviewed the commissionedtheYouth Leadership Council of Michigan Foundations' (CMF) Institute (YLI) to complete a formal assess- comprehensive Youth Grantmakers Database ment of youth philanthropy' in the United for 2000. Early in 2001, we also surveyed 217 States. Although there are some reports now youth philanthropists in 28 programs and 30 capturing the success of initial efforts and adults representing 25 programs. program models designed to involve young The research showed that youth philan- people in grantmaking, Changing the Face of thropy holds great benefits for all the parties Giving: An Assessment of Youth Philanthropy involved: the young people who make fund- is intended to fill a gap in the literature by ing decisions, the foundations which engage providing a guide written specifically for youth as partners in their work, the programs foundations, program designers, youth that receive grants and the communities development practitioners, policymakers, those programs serve. and other public or private parties interested Youth philanthropists say their experi- in supporting youth philanthropy or involv- ence in grantmaking helped them to under- ing youth as philanthropic partners. stand community and youth issues, to make

2 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION better decisions, to feel more comfortable youth grantmaking programinChico, sharing their views and to learn how to lead. It California. "They develop language skills, also seemed to spark their interest in higher mathematical and budgeting skills. They also education 59 percent of youth philanthro- improve their critical thinking, ability to ana- pists surveyed said that participation in youth lyze and public speaking. These are all profi- philanthropy programs increased their inter- ciencies they can use not only in school, but est in attending college. It also had an impact in their work some day." on their choice of studies and career path. Leaders of the foundations and commu- In fact, many foundations are looking to nity groups that sponsor youth philanthropy youth philanthropy as a means to youth devel- also describe the benefits to their organiza- opment. Youth-led grantmaking almost uni- tions. Hearing young peoples' perspectives is versally involves young people practicing important, they say, especially when consid- leadership, solving problems, studying pro- ering grants to programs designed to benefit posals, managing budgets, working together youth. The initiatives also prepare a new gen- and presenting views to an audience of peers eration to continue the foundations' legacies and adults. of community service and philanthropy. "Youth philanthropy is one of the most Young people often lead the programs genuine expressions of youth development a that receive the grants. Studies of the Youth community can engage in," says Maureen Leadership Institutes' own programs have Sedonaen, executive director of the Youth found that youth seeking grants learn impor- Leadership Institute in San Francisco. "It pro- tant lessons about planning, group decision- vides supports, skills, a connection to the com- making and budgeting skills. These young munity, and opportunities for young people to grantees also feel a closer connection to their build relationships with peers and adults." communities and gain confidence that they While there may be little in the way of can change things for the better. empirical evidence that these activities lead to Finally, the benefits of youth philanthro- improved success in school, there is plenty of py are felt directly in communities, local anecdotal evidence that they do. Experts in organizations, and schools through the pro- youth development have identified those grams that young people choose to fund. skills as indicators of academic success and Youth philanthropy grants have been used to greater ambition for higher education. Many provide dental care for low-income children involved in the youth philanthropy field, in central Indiana, a safe haven for teens in including the youth themselves, make this Ann Arbor, Michigan, and support for work- link not only with academic achievement, but shops on sexual harassment in San Francisco with success in their future careers. schools, to name just d few examples. "There is definitely a link between the In addition to these benefits, our research abilities our youth grantmakers develop and found that the youth philanthropy move- doingwellinschool,"says Amanda ment has other strengths and faces significant Montgomery, supervising health education challenges. 0 specialist for the Butte County Department of Behavioral Health. The department oversees and houses Butte County Youth Nexus, a

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 3 Programs have many purposes: Youth philanthropy programs typically aim to teach youth the importance of giving and serving; spur youth involvement in philanthropy; provide ways for young people to take action on issues that are important to them; and/or promote youth development in general.

Geographic distribution is uneven: Youth philanthropy initiatives appear to be concentrated in a few states. Examples of areas with high activity include Connecticut, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and states in New England, along with New York City and the San Francisco Bay Area. Youth philan- Grants are relatively small:Of the 70 thropy has a much smaller presence in many youth philanthropy groups for which data other areas, such as Los Angeles. was available, the average grant size in 2000 was $2,252, which is relatively small com- Diversity among participants is limited: pared to those awarded by adult philanthrop- The report's survey finds that most youth ic groups. philanthropists are still drawn from traditional leadership circles, but that participa- Funds come from a range of sources: tion is gradually becoming more diverse. At Youth philanthropy initiatives are supported 59 percent, white youth made up the largest by a range of funding sources, including category of the youth philanthropists who young people themselves raising and donat- responded to our survey; African-American ing their own funds. National foundations youth made up 17 percent of survey respon- took an early lead in providing operating dents;10 percent were Asian-American support and, in some cases, matching funds youth; and Latino youth accounted for four for the creation of endowments. Many com- percent of survey respondents. Sixty-six per- munity foundations are not only funding but cent of respondents were female. Of youth also operating youth philanthropy initiatives. respondents who were aware of their family's School-basedinitiatives,in most cases, economic status, 55 percent reported that receive their funds from local or national their parents earn more than $60,000 a year; foundations. Some local governments also 18 percent reported parental income of more sponsor youth philanthropy boards that than $100,000; and 20 percent reported that allow young people to make small grants for their parents made less than $30,000. More community needs, or they may fund commu- than 60 percent were in the upper grades of nity-based programs that oversee youth phi- high school. lanthropy programs.

4 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION Recommendations

Foundations traditionally have strong con- Increase the size of grants.Real money nections to adult community members and brings real power. Without the control of signif- organizations, but are often at a disadvan- icant dollars, youth philanthropy runs the risk tage when it comes to connecting with of being seen as merely practice, as mock phi- youth. Starting a youth philanthropy initia- lanthropy. While small amounts of money can tive may require some changes in a founda- prompt change, long-term solutions to com- tion's perspective. The report makes the fol- munity problems frequently require larger lowing recommendations to foundations investments. interested in supporting youth philanthropy (more detailed recommendations are pre- Create endowments to sustain youth grantmaking over time.Foundations and sented on page 34): community-based organizations interested in establishing or expanding youth philanthropy Use youth philanthropy as a powerful tool for initiatives should consider seeding permanent community youth development.Youth philanthropy builds the kinds of skills that improve endowments. young people's self-esteem, academic achieve- Increase fundraising by youth. Encouraging ment and future success. Youth philanthropy ini- young people involved in philanthropy to raise tiatives should actively plan for these goals. money not only increases the coffers available for grantmaking but helps the young people Expand youth philanthropy.The report sug- develop fundraising skills as well. gests a number of strategies for increasing support for youth-led boards as well as bringing more youth onto adult-led philanthropic Promote progress through conflict.As youth boards, and enhancing their participation once grants grow larger and youth philanthropists make more controversial grants, the potential they're involved. for conflict between adult and youth philanthropists increases. Such conflicts are evidence Increase the diversity of young grantmak- that important issues are being addressed and ers.Programs must reach out to new popula- should be embraced, not squelched, by adult tionsin particular, youth from working class funders. or poor families, middle school-aged students, young people who are not in school and youth Give youth-led community projects special who are sexual minorities. The report offers dif- attention.Young people with ideas for commu- ferent approaches for doing so. nity change need moresupport and assistance with planning projects and writing grants. Encourage youth to plan for and fund projects that move beyond service.Few youth Encourage youth-adult partnerships.Youth, philanthropy programs consciously encourage adults and philanthropicorganizations all ben- young grantseekers to organize and take action efit when adults play the important role of advi- to address the root causes of community prob- sor to youth philanthropists, while also acting lems, the report finds. Most initiatives focus as equal partners in the grantmaking process. 0 only on producing immediate community services, not long-term change.

10 CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 5 rnt Tod migUon

youth philanthropy is a young movement, one that began formally only 15 years ago. Today it has the attention of a range of stakeholders, from the White House to grassroots youth groups in urban, suburban, and rural areas. It is not a monolithic movement but one that forwaysto .\.,....._ strengthen their encompasses different ideas about what work. In this report roles we want young people to play in we set out to do the following: society, both in their youth and as adults. Youth philanthropy has captured the * Explain the different interest of national and local foundations, purposes of youth philanthropy federal, state and local governments, business leaders and nonprofit organiza- * Highlight important host tions and academic researchers. For institutions and initiatives many potential participants, however, it * Document the common is still a foreign concept. components of youth Some early reports have explored the philanthropy programs concepts and successes of initial youth phi- * Describe the benefits and lanthropy efforts. But no thorough investiga- beneficiaries of youth tion of youth philanthropy has yet been done. philanthropy In this report, we seek to provide a compre-/ * Recommend future hensive overview of the state of youth philan- directions for the field. thropy in America. We hope this report will guide stakehold- While the grants being awarded by programs ers as they make decisions about theirinvol>e,____andinitiatives that involve young people in ment in youth philanthropy. Our target audi- philanthropy are still relatively small com- ences include program investors and program pared to grants allocated by adult philanthrop- planners who are interested in the concept but ic groups, a tremendous amount of human need assistance in channeling their ideas in capitalis being invested and is leveraging meaningful ways. The report is also intended countless more investments. Greater attention to pique the interest of funders and planners is now being paid to youth in philanthropy who are not familiar with youth philanthropy. and new opportunities are fast increasing. We Finally, it targets organizations that are cur- hope this report will help any interested rently involved in supporting or managing organization take advantage of those new youth philanthropy initiatives and are looking opportunities. 0

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT' OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 7 sent one survey to youth grantmaking participants and another to adult program person- nel. These surveys were designed to discover: Details about the operation and arch Methods purpose of individual youth philanthropy programs What youth and adults believe about the roles of young people in philanthropy and the community generally The types of training young or this report, we examined the philanthropists receive field of youth philanthropy through a _variety of research methods. Staff What youth have learned from the Youth Leadership Institute (YLI) from the programs conducted phone and in-person inter- The impact of these programs views with philanthropy program staff on the community and members and movement leaders. We also its institutions interviewed individuals designing youth The demographic characteristics philanthropy programs or involved in cur- of the young people in riculum development in the field. YLI staff these programs. also met with youth from five different youth philanthropy groups in the San Thirty percent of those to whom we sent a Francisco Bay Area and Michigan to learn survey completed and returned the survey. about their experiences. In some cases, We received completed surveys from 217 the staff observed grantmaking meetings youth philanthropists in 28 different pro- to understand the processes involved. Our grams. We also received responses from 30 research helped us understand what pro- adults representing 25 programs. The surveys grams are actually doing on the ground. we received came from the following states: UsingtheCouncilofMichigan California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Foundations' (CMF) Youth Grantmakers Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Database for 2000a comprehensive list of Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, youth philanthropy programs in the United Texas, and Virginia.2 Stateswe sought to understand basic YLI staff also gathered information con- trends, like how much money is being grant- tained in program materials from dozens of ed and what types of projects are being fund- youth philanthropy programs not included ed. Early in 2001, we developed surveys, in the survey. which we sent to 93 different philanthropy Finally, we reviewed a variety of youth programsall but five of which we found in philanthropy curricula and program evalua- the Michigan Database. tions. These evaluations included a six-year We sent the surveys to youth and adults assessment of the Michigan Community in programs that represented a cross-section Foundations' Youth Project (1991-1997), a of philanthropic models from different insti- program of the Council of Michigan tutional settings and different locations Foundations, the 1990 three-site review of across the country. We made sure to include the Indiana Youth as Resources Initiative, and those in the more recognized initiatives, as an assessment of the Vancouver Foundation well as lesser-known, smaller programs. We Youth in Philanthropy program. 0 12 8 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION ExpOopq the EnrwrvingMead ofYo PhHanthropy

General History The first formal youth philanthropy initiatives began in the mid-to-late 1980s. In 1985, the Community Foundation for the National What Is Youth Philanthropy? Capital Region in the District of Columbia (for- Philanthropy, in Webster's Ninth Collegiate merly the Community Foundation of Greater Dictionary, is defined as "goodwill to fellow- Washington), started a youth philanthropy men; an active effort to promote human wel- program in which young people raised fare; a philanthropic act or gift; or an organi- funds and made grants.3 In 1987, the zation distributing or supported by philan- Marin Community Foundation in thropic funds." California began an effort that n But what is youth philanthropy? At this combined youth philanthropy point, there are several answers. For some, with youth governance. The youth philanthropy is young people giving foundation gave resources Youth philanthropy is one of time, talents and money to their communities. to the Marin County Youth the most genuine Commission, which in For Janet Wakefield, co-directorof expressions of youth Community Partnerships with Youth in Fort turn made grants to local Wayne, Indiana, youth philanthropy is about youth projects. development a community helping young people answer the question At the same time, can engage in. It provides "What do I care about?"3 For others, youth two national organiza- supports, skills, a philanthropy applies to efforts to involve tions,theNational young people in traditional, organized philan- Crime Prevention connection to the Council (NCPC) and thropy. community, and Some programs use the mechanisms of theW. K.Kellogg institutionalized philanthropy to engage youth Foundationinitiated opportunities for young in their communities and the idea of public larger efforts. The NCPC people to build relationships service.For example, the W.K. Kellogg began by working with with peers and adults. Foundation calls youth philanthropy "an the Boston Foundation, to establish Teens as Com- approach to empower and establish young Maureen Sedonaen, people as community leaders."4 Some youth munity Resources. In 1987, executive director, programs never use the term philanthropy, the NCPC established Youth though their core program elements include as Resources in three Indiana Youth Leadership philanthropic methods, like grantmaking. communities. These boards of Institute For the purposes of this report, we have adults and youth provided funds defined youth philanthropy programs or ini- to encourage youth-led, youth-driv- tiatives as those in which youth develop en service projects. In 1988, the Kellogg knowledge of and participate in the formal Foundation joined withtheCharles DU practice of philanthropy, specifically grant- Stewart Mott Foundation and the Council of making. Projects that promote youth involve- Michigan Foundations to provide initial ment in community service and volunteerism, endowment funding for the development of but do not include grantmaking or formal local community foundations across Michi- philanthropic concepts, are not discussed in gan. To receive matching funds, newly formed this report. foundations were required to create and set aside funds for Youth Advisory Committees (YACs), boards of an average of 20 young people who would make grant recommendations for youth programs. Three years later, the

CHANGINGTHIaCEOF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 9 Surdna Foundation established the Student Advocates of youth philanthropy often Service and Philanthropy Project in argue that community foundations are the which students in selected New York ideal location for youth-led grantmaking, City high schools studied philan- since community foundations have a high thropy in their classrooms and level of independence in the community, as Adding youth voices can made grants to projects devel- well as a neutrality and legitimacy that com- oped by other students in the munity-basedorganizationsmaynot. change the culture of school.6 Barbara Oates, program director for the foundations [and] The Michigan and Vancouver Foundation, a community foun- enhance their reputation Indiana initiatives have con- dation in British Columbia, believes that tinued to grow and evolve "having a champion from adults with power for listening to the and are now the largest youth is really important because it opens doors. community. philanthropy efforts in the That's why doing [youth philanthropy] with nation. The Surdna Founda- community foundations is a good idea." She Barbara Oates, tion's program in New York argues that adding youth voices can also program director, City schools is no longer in change the culture of foundations, enhance Vancouver Foundation existence, although its emphasis their reputation for listening to the commu- on classroom philanthropy stud- nity and help them recognize when outdated ies and school-based grantmaking systems need to change.? has been adapted for use in Colorado, The mission of community foundations Michigan and Oregon. is directly related to philanthropy, which These initial large-scale investments of means they have already developed many of the the mid-to-late 1980s have served as the models resources they need to administer youth phi- for dozens of smaller initiatives that have lanthropy programs. Foundations have signifi- emerged since. cant capacities for administration, fundraising and endowment management, along with Institutions that Involve knowledge of legal structures, basic contract development and monitoring. Many other Youth in Philanthropy institutions that take on youth philanthropy Schools, community organizations and foun- must develop these capabilities from scratch. dations (especially community foundations) However, community foundations are are the three major institutions that support not always interested in funding risky initia- youth philanthropy. Local governments and tives or those that challenge the status quo. other foundations are now sponsoring pro- Just as important, foundation staff may not grams as well. Traditionally, partnerships have the necessary training to support and between two or more of these types of institu- work in partnership with young people, espe- tions have supported youth philanthropy ini- cially youth who have not had leadership tiatives, though many foundations and com- experience. Youth philanthropy programs, munity organizations continue to operate because they have many elements that are independently. typical of more traditional work with youth, Youth philanthropy initiatives are sup- require a commitment that can be challeng- ported by a range of funding sources ing to organizations whose primary focus is including young people who are raising and grantmaking. Recognizing this challenge, the donating their own funds. Below we consider Michigan Community Foundations' Youth the specific institutional settings in which for- Project developed statewide training for staff mal programs exist. and young people. Community foundations are not the only Foundations Many of the youth philan- foundations involved in youth philanthropy. listedin thropy projects the Michigan Private foundations have also formally incor- Database are operated by foundations, the porated youth philanthropy initiatives. In majority of which are community founda- addition, some familyfoundationsare tions.

10 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION 14 involved in managing youth philanthropy management and financial systems to disburse programs. The Ewing Marion Kauffman money, manage contracts and ensure account- Foundation of Kansas City, Missouri is a ability. These systems require significant initial unique example of a private foundation that investments in hiring trained staff and pur- makes grants nationally while also housing a chasing computer software and hardware. youth philanthropy initiative with a local focus. Schools School-based youth philanthropy National foundation involvement in initiatives are becoming increasingly com- youth philanthropy is focused on supporting mon. Most initiatives seek to integrate phil- implementation and curricula. The Lilly anthropic concepts such as grantmaking, Endowment and the Surdna, Charles Stewart fundraising and the development of service Mott and W. K. Kellogg foundations have all projects into the classroom. Foundations used their resources in this way. National have generally taken the lead in introducing foundations also took an early lead in pro- youth philanthropy to school administra- viding matching funds for the creation of tions and working with teachers to imple- endowments. ment philanthropy curricula in classrooms. School-based initiatives, in most cases, also Nonprofit Organizations Both very small receive their funds from local or national philanthropy programs and large, citywide foundations. Colorado's El Pomar initiatives are often managed by community- FoundationandOregon'sPGE-Enron based nonprofit organizations. Youth Leader- Foundation are two examples of foundations ship Institute in San Francisco manages two that aid youth philanthropy initiatives in youth philanthropy programs in which boards local schools. of young people and their adult allies award In Michigan, the Council of Michigan grants to projects and ideas initiated by youth. Foundations has established the Learning to Across the San Francisco Bay in Oakland, the. Give program (formerly the K-12 Education Community Health Academy has a youth phi- in Philanthropy Project). With a curriculum lanthropy initiative focused on neighbor- that originated from the Surdna Foundation's hoods in East Oakland. National nonprofit Student Service and Philanthropy Project, the organizations are also involved. A number of Michigan effort is designed to integrate con- national groups, including Youth Venture, cepts and practices of philanthropy into gen- National 4-H Council, and Do Something, eral coursework. award small grants to young people across the Much of the development of school- country for community projects. based philanthropy has occurred in the con- Frequently based in the neighborhoods text of a national youth service movement in which they recruit young people, commu- over the past couple of decades, which pro- nity organizations are at an advantage in motes youth giving through volunteering and attracting a diverse set of youth to participate. learning about service. The movement grew Staff who can relate to and work with youth out of smaller, grassroots efforts as well as and their families are in an ideal position to federally subsidized service initiatives such as act as allies and partners to young people. AmeriCorps. Because community-based organizations do School-based settings offer the obvious not maintain the same neutrality that com- strengths of a captive audience of young peo- munity foundations often do, they can often ple and a group of adults with experience in take more risks in funding initiatives. teaching youth. Classrooms can be appropri- Financially and administratively, however, ate settings for training, discussion and prac- community organizations are at a disadvan- tice in philanthropy. tage compared to foundations, especially if However, administrative and bureaucrat- community organizations wish to grant large ic challenges can limit the flexibility and cre- amounts of money. Community organiza- ativity of school-based programs. Also, there tions often have to create new information is an obvious power structure between teach-

CHANGINGTIE5CEOF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 11 ers and students that can hinder the effective PartnershipsBecause different institu- development of true partnerships between tions have different strengths, founda- youth and adults. Most youth granting pro- tions, local nonprofits, and schools grams in schools give out relatively small often work together to implement sums; conversations with practitioners and youth philanthropy. One example is funders revealed that there are fairly low ceil- the formal partnership involving the ings on how much money schools can grant. Youth United Way of Kalamazoo, During its three-year run, Surdna Foun- Michigan; the Kalamazoo dation's Student Service and Philanthropy Community Foundation;and Project actually reduced the amount of public and private schools in the money it provided each school for re-granti- community.TheKalamazoo ng from $7,500 to $2,500, because of the Community Foundation man- complexities of in-school re-granting.8 ages the grantmaking funds, while the program is housed in Government Agencies Few government GreaterKalamazooUnited agencies manage their own youth philanthropy Way offices and managed by programs, but there are some examples. United Way staff.InSan Cheshire Youth Services in Connectitut the Francisco, the Youth City of Longmont Youth Services in Coloradb Leadership Institute's Youth andtheButteCounty Departmentof Initiated Projects is a partner- Behavioral Health in California all oversee prod'' ship among YLI, the grams in which young people are making small VolunteerCenter of San grants for community needs. FranciscoandtheSan Local government funding is also rare, Francisco Youth Commis- though there are some exceptions. In San sion.The partnershipis Francisco, local voters recently passed a bal- funded by both public and lot proposal to establish an estimated $30 private resources. 0 million fund for child and youth programs, with $750,000 to $1,000,000 annually ear- marked for youth-led projects. In Oakland, a similarly structured fund sets aside 20 percent of its $7 million fund for youth-led projects. In addition, all of the initiatives benefit- ing from this fund incorporate youth decisionmaking boards and youth-led and youth-driven projects. They also incorporate program evaluation to monitor and assess the program's impact.

12 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION YOUTH PHILANTHROPY IN ACTION: 140h C©mMy V©un RleKus PTKTEEN r -----Imost three years ago, the board of The foundation not only funded the grants, the North Valley Community says foundation spokesman Dan Nguyen-Tan, A Foundation in Chico, California but just as important, provided intensive train- began planning for a youth-led ing in philanthropy for both county staff and grantmaking board. the youth. Nguyen-Tan says the foundation instructed staff and youth in how to do grant- Their aim was two-fold: first, to promote philan- making, how foundations operate, and what thropy throughout Butte County; and second, approaches other youth philanthropy groups to help develop young people into healthy, well- around the country are taking. rounded adults and educate them about the value of giving. "We wanted these young people to do every- thing that any adult grantmaker would do, "My feeling was that kids aren't necessarily including create a mission and guidelines, going to understand how to be good citizens develop an evaluation process, read and score unless someone teaches it to them," says applications and interview applicants," Nguyen- Howard Slater, president of the foundation. Tan said. "We wanted them to develop skills "They have to learn from their elders and expe- that would ultimately translate to their becom- riences in life about the value of philanthropy ing part of the next generation of civic entre- and volunteerism before they can value those preneurs." things themselves. Foundations can play a great role in that education process." outh Nexus, limited by a relatively small amount of funding (mainly The foundation formed a partnership with the because of the limited resources of Butte County Department of Behavioral the foundation), is nevertheless Health's Community Services Division having a tremendous impact on Prevention Unit. The unit's main mission is to Butte County, on grantseekers and on prevent risky youth behavior through youth the youth grantmakers themselves, says development and the promotion of youth as a Amanda Montgomery, the county's supervising resource to the community, including training health education specialist, who oversees the youth in public speaking, facilitative leadership, program. The youth-led board meetings are decisionmaking, and consensus building. always attended by at least one adult coordinator. The coordinator provides support and guid- Together, the two started the highly successful ance, but decisions on grants are made entirely Butte County Youth Nexus program, a youth- by the youth. led grantmaking board of 13 to 15 high school students from around the county who meet "They do a lot with what adults would consider twice monthly and award $5,000 worth of to be very little money," Montgomery said. grants every year to youth-led community proj- "But to them it's a lot more money than they ects. The group is multi-racial, multi-ethnic, would normally control. One of the skills they and includes young people from a variety of learn is how to be responsible with managing socio-economic circumstances. continued on next page

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 13 YOUTH PHILANTHROPY IN ACTION: Butte Corny Youth Me mils Program ((coMlnued)

their budget and how to pick and choose "I found my grades going up, especially in programs that are cost-effective and will English," Church says. "I think the whole have the greatest impact." experience motivated me to do better in school, maybe because I was being looked Among the projects the youth board has at as someone who was intelligent. funded are: Someone actually wanted to know my thoughts about what was wrong in my A youth project to feed homeless young people. With funding from Youth Nexus, community and asked my advice, and no a local youth group built a food cart they one had ever done that before. It made me use to deliver fresh, healthy meals to feel really good, like I'd never felt before teens living on the streets. like my opinion mattered."

4,4 A teen pregnancy prevention brochure. Montgomery says Church's public speaking A group of teen parents use the brochure during their regular high school panel pre- skills also improved dramatically: "When he sentations about how to prevent teen preg- was asked to run his first meeting, he was nancy and problems associated with teen doing his best, but he was sometimes nerv- pregnancy. ous and a little awkward. Now he can run a meeting better than I can, better than most A city mural that promotes acceptance of diversity. Using art supplies paid for by adults I know." Youth Nexus, young people in a high school drug and alcohol treatment pro- Church, who hopes to apply to the gram created the mural to give something University of California, Berkeley, next year, lasting to the community. and is considering a career in philanthropy or academia, said youth-led grantmaking All of the youth involved in the process gain a boards are a training ground for future phi- variety of skills, Montgomery said. lanthropists and leaders.

"Both the youth grantseekers and the grant- "It helps us grow up to become stronger makers gain a stronger belief in their own and better and more compassionate ability to have an impact," she says. "Also, adults," he says. "And it erases stereotypes during the grant process, the grantmakers about young peoplethat we are not read the proposals written by the grantseek- smart or don't have enough life experience ers and look to see whether they are respond- to contribute to anything. In reality, we're ing appropriately based on what question is experts on being young." 0 being asked. Those are huge language and analysis skills."

Cole Church, 18, spent two years on the Youth Nexus board and is now preparing to train new board members. The experience improved his academic achievement and the way he views himself.

14 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION Dem©vaphki oV Youn P)aTtl©NUng ur initial assessment of the demographic characteristics of young PhHannTopy--- people engaged in philanthropy shows that the majority come from traditional leadership groups. However, our surveys, interviews and other research show that the diversity of young people participating in philanthropic programs is increasing as well. While many youth philanthropy programs include a signifi- three extracurricular activities. Furthermore, cant percentage of high-achieving, mid- 42 percent reported that they were a presi- dle class youth, many other programs dent or other office holder on their school are making efforts to include young peo- student council; 49 percent held leadership ple who are not usually found in tradi- positions in school clubs; 37 percent were tional youth leadership roles. leaders in sports leagues; and 34 percent held The majority of youth engaged in phi- leadership positions in extracurricular activi- lanthropy who responded to our surveys are ties. Many respondents held two leadership white, high achieving, middle class, female positions, not including their roles in philan- and older.9 White youth made up the largest thropyprograms.Ninety-twopercent category of respondents at 59 percent. believed that they would attend college after African-American youth were the second completing high school. largest group at 17 percent, with Asian- Clearly youth philanthropy attracts many American students third at 10 percent. Only motivated and talented young people. At the four percent were Latinos. same time, there is also good reason to believe Of the young people who responded to that participation in youth philanthropy leads our survey, 66 percent were female. We also to greater academic achievement. Studies found that more than 60 percent of partici- have found that young people involved in pants are in the upper grades of high school. after-school activities are more likely to earn Given the intensity and complexity of many high grades, avoid trouble in high school and formal philanthropy programs, we were not go on to college. Many adults involved in surprised to find that most participants were youth development initiatives find that activ- in 11th and 12th grade. It does suggest, how- ities common in youth philanthropy, such as ever, that youth in middle school and lower leadership training, problem solving and high school grades are not being engaged. group task orientation, are all leading indica- Of those youth who were aware of their tors of improved academic performance. family's economic status, 55 percent reported Some programs, we found, are still strug- that their parents earn more than $60,000 per gling to recruit and retain a diverse member- year, while 18 percent reported that their par- ship. One program advisor expressed interest ents earn more than $100,000 per year. in involving youth who have been involved in However, almost 20 percent reported that their the juvenile justice system: "The voice that parents' income is less than $30,000 and 14 kid would bring could be very important but percent were eligible for a free lunch at school. we have yet to figure out how to recruit. Most Our young respondents were also ambi- kids in [our program] know they will go to tious and active. More than 99.5 percent were college, and many are taking community col- in school. They were on average involved in lege classes while still in high school."

CHANGING THE FACE 01CUING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 15 Many programs based in community * The Chicago Housing Authority estab- organizations are having success in involv- lished a Youth as Resources grantmaking JJ ing non-traditional youth leaders and program in the Robert Taylor homes, a minority youth. A few examples: large public housing complex in Chicago. Youth grantmakers By incorporating youth phi- Partnerships can also help attract a diverse develop language skills, lanthropy programs in hun- membership. The Center for Youth as dreds of elementary, middle mathematical and Resources, Washington, D.C. helps existing and high schools across New community youth organizations, like Boys budgeting skills. They also York City, Common Cents and Girls Clubs, establish granting boards at improve their critical New York, a youth philan- their facilities, thereby lessening their need to thropy organization that thinking, ability to analyze recruit. Foundations are often at a disadvan- sponsors student-led tage in recruiting young people and so fre- and public speaking. \projects and other proj- quently work with youth organizations or ects in the surrounding These are all proficiencies seek to establish youth philanthropy pro- community, is reaching a grams in schools. El Pomar Foundation in they can use not only in diverse range of young Colorado Springs fosters youth philanthropy school but in their work people. by supporting individual El Pomar Youth in some day. * Youth of color com- Community Service sites in high schools prise the majority of the across the state. 0 Amanda Montgomery, membership on all but one supervising health education of the seven groups of specialist, Butte County youth grantmaking boards in community-based organi- Department of zations in the San Francisco Behavioral Health Bay Area. On San Francisco's Youth Initiated Projects' Review Board, for instance, 30 percent of the DU board members live in public housing, and 90 percent are youth of color. (Many Bay Area youth philanthropy programs use financial incentives to recruit and retain diverse groups of youth.) * Through Youth as Resources' 73 separate youth grantmaking programs in the United States, more than 4,000 incarcer- ated youth have been involved in planning projects and getting funds from local YAR boards.10 * At one of Youth as Resources' largest local programs, in Central Indiana, 29 percent of all youth participants, including grantmakers, grantees and beneficiaries, are youth of color."

16 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION PreVdence and Geomphic NstTl.butkpn ofd Youth PhHanthropy Pr©qTams

L___ _1he Council of Michigan Foundations' Youth Grantmakers Database, the _most comprehensive source of information about youth philanthropy,lists In 1996, 59 percent of teenagers did some more than 250 youth philanthropy ini- type of volunteer service work, with their tiatives. However, many youth phi- service averaging 3.5 hours per week, lanthropy programs are not yet according to a report from the listed in this database, and many Independent Sector, a nonprofit programs that are listed as just research organization.12 Teens also one entry in fact comprise sever- are giving their money. Forty-two al different groups of young people percent of teenagers made charitable making grants. For example, the El contributions in 1996. Their donations -----.. PomarFoundation ofColorado averaged $82.13 Springs is listed as one youth phi- Youth philanthropy initiatives are dis- lanthropy program, but the foun- tributed unevenly throughout the United dation has established youth States, according to the Michigan Database. grantmaking boards in 112 high Programs are concentrated in New York City, the San Francisco Bay Area, and parts of schools across Colorado. Given British Columbia along with the New these factors, it is likely there are England states and the states of Connecticut, 500 or more separate youth grant- Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. making bodies in the United States alone. In these regions, civic leaders, govern- In addition, many individual young ment officials, private and public people are practicing community service grantmakers, youth workers, and outside of formal young people are recognizing and philanthropy supporting local youth philan- programs. thropic efforts. But youth philanthropy has a much smaller presence in many other areas. One important example is Los Angelesthe second largest metropolitan area in the United States after New York which has only a few, relatively small philanthropic programs for young people. 0

rr CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 17 DIVifferent P)urposes ofd Youth PhRannTopy and/or to stimulate and support youth involvement in change.15

rnIManyes Young people answered slightly different questions about the aims of their programs. However, the results reveal that those who ecause youth philanthropy initia- responded also believe their programs are tives have emerged from different serving many purposes. More than 75 per- institutions, we found important cent of respondents definitely or mostly differences in what these programs are agreed with the following statements: trying to accomplish. We studied program * An important part of my program is materials and survey responses from preparing young people to give back to both youth and adults and held discus- the community now and in the future. sions with stakeholders to shape our understanding of the different goals. Our * An important part of my program is research revealed four core purposes for preparing me to serve on other grant- youth philanthropy: to spur youth partic- making boards as a youth. ipation in institutional philanthropy; to * An important part of my program is increase youth involvement in communi- preparing me to serve on other grant- ty change; to promote youth service and making boards as an adult. giving; and to help youth develop into While the four core purposes of youth philan- healthy and productive adults. thropy are found in many programs, they are Many youth philanthropy programs have often carried out in different ways. more than one purpose. The Michigan Community Foundations' Youth Project, for example, balances a commitment to teaching Spurring Youth Participation generosity to future adult leaders with the in Institutional Philanthropy promotion of youth participation in commu- Perhaps the most obvious purpose of youth nity decision making.14 philanthropy programs is to increase youth Our survey of adults shows that most participation in institutional philanthropy participants see many good reasons for pur- to place young people "at the table" with suing youth philanthropy: adult decisionmakers. These initiatives are * Most adults said their program served based on the belief that youth perspectives, three main purposes: cultivating giving ideas, creativity, and insights can benefit phil- and serving; increasing youth participa- anthropic institutions. tion in institutional philanthropy; and Creating youth boards linked to adult- encouraging youth involvement in com- driven institutions exposes youth to the munity change. process of making important decisions, while also demonstrating to adults how youth can * Thirty-eight percent of the adult respon- be part of critical community decisions. This dents agreed that increasing youth par- approach challenges a foundation and its ticipation in institutional philanthropy adult participants to examine how ready the was the most important purpose. institution is to work with young people. * One third of adult respondents thought This purpose is found most frequently that the general purpose of their pro- within foundations. In San Francisco, the gram was to cultivate the ethic of service Horizons Foundation serves the lesbian, gay,

18 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION 22 Increasing Youth Involvement in bisexual and transgender communities. Its Community Change goal was for 50 percent of the members of At the heart of a number of youth Youth have shown Horizon's Children, Youth and Families philanthropy initiativesis the themselves capable of Allocation Committee to be people age 24 or concept that young people can under by spring 2001. and should be actively involved tackling issueslike AnotherexampleistheMichigan in improving and changing teen pregnancy, drug Community Foundations' Youth Project. The their communities. project was designed to saturate Michigan This goal is found most- abuse prevention, community foundations with a powerful ly in nonprofit organizations homelessness, AIDS youth voice through youth grantmaking and is at the core of many prevention, and other boards. One such board, the Youth Advisory youthphilanthropy pro- Committee of the Grand Haven Area grams in the San Francisco major social concerns Community Foundation, is now the third: Bay Area. With a combined practically, effectively largest funder in the community, giving this total of more than $600,000 a group of young people impressive power and year in grants exclusively to and sensitively. youth-led, community-change legitimacy, according to Robert S. Collier, Changing Perspectives: presidentof theCouncilof Michigan efforts, Bay Area youth philan- Foundations and a leader in the national thropy is overwhelmingly focus- Youth As Resources, youth philanthropy movement for more than ed on giving youth tools and National Crime a decade.16 resources for action. Prevention Council Beyond its benefits for foundations, pro- Youth as Resources (YAR), with ponents say involving youth in decisionmak- 73 sites in Indiana, Florida, Illinois and ing is also important for the community, other locations, is organized around the especially when the decisions involve pro- principle that when young people are con- grams dealing with young people. 17 One sidered resources "they can and do make a Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation differenceintheircommunitiesand DU Youth Council member believes, "Those who schools."2° YAR leadership believes that are directly impacted by grants should be youth participants "have shown themselves involved in decisions."18 capable of tackling teen pregnancy, drug In Indiana, a state in which community abuse prevention, homelessness, AIDS pre- foundations also have a significant presence, vention and other major social concerns an initiative linking youth grantmaking and practically, effectively, and sensitively."21 community foundations has been established Some efforts see youth philanthropy very with the express purpose of integrating youth specifically as a tool young people can use to perspectives into the highest decisionmaking build the youth community. Peggy Loper, levels of these foundations, including boards youthdevelopmentdirectorforthe of trustees.19 In exchange for a commitment Community Health Academy's Youth Grants from Indiana foundations to participate, the for Youth Action in Oakland, sees youth phi- Center for Youth as Resources' Midwest lanthropy as a way to encourage and honor regional office -in Indianapolis disburses young people's desires for self-determination matching funds for an endowment to be con- and empowerment.22 trolled by youth-adult partnered boards. 0 3

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 19 Promoting Youth Service and Giving A number of philanthropy initiatives are built on the notion that young people live in a cul- youth philanthropy is a highly effective tool ture that encourages self-interest and that that provides the setting, skills, context and efforts need to be made to help youth "grow experience necessary for positive youth up generous."23 This concept emerges out of development. studies such as Robert Neelly Bellah's 1985 Youth-led grantmaking can help provide book, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and the building blocks to a smooth transition to Commitment in American Life,24 which notes adulthood. An overwhelming percentage of the growing movement of individualism and young philanthropists we surveyed said the the disappearance of traditions of volun- experience has taught them to feel more teerism. comfortable planning and leading meetings Curricula such as Youth asPhilan- and made them more committed to helping thropists created by Community Partnership their communities. with Youth emphasize lessons and actions that It imbues them with a sense of power in "instill [in young people] the conviction to the world, says Terry Lind, director of pro- plan for a lifetime commitment to service."25 grams and evaluation at the Community Scott Massey, president and CEO of the Foundation Silicon Valley in California. The Indiana Humanities Council, a philanthropic foundation oversees and funds two youth organization spearheading an initiative also grantmaking programs, the East Palo Alto called Habits of the Heart, notes that their aim Money Crew and The Source in San Jose. is less about organizational or community "It can be exciting and empowering for change and more about "personal transfor- the youth on our boards," Lind says. "They mation [in] youth."26 In programs based on have the opportunity to give away a lot more thisprinciple, the program's immediate money than the average community member impact on community, society or institutions donates in a given year. There's power attached is less important than its long-term influence on personal values, actions and commit- to that, but along with it the kids come to real: ize the responsibility they've taken on in ments. Massey's group argues that the ration- deciding who and what projects get funded. ale for its project is to preserve the United They understand that it's an opportunity to States' unique philanthropic tradition and to open doors and make things happen." pass that tradition on to future generations.27 It also provides many of the experiences that have been found to spur academic achieve- Aiding Youth Development ment in youth both now and in the future. For young people to develop into healthy Philanthropic work requires young people to adults, they need safe environments and hone their skills in writing, speaking, research- opportunities for growth. They need chances ing and presenting ideas, solving problems, to practice important skills, build positive evaluating alternatives and making decisions. relationships with adults and peers, forge con- These are life-long skills that will serve them nections to community and school, and well both in school and in future careers. 0 improve their capacity to lead. Youth philanthropy, according to Robert F. Sherman, program officer for Effective Citizenry at the Surdna Foundation, is a strong youth development tool because of its ability to "marry head and heart, human needs, political pas- sions and analytical and cognitive skills."28 By providing support and opportunities to both the grantseeker and the grantmaker,

20 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION he Rackanks PhDancHITTIN

o matter what the aim of a youth philanthropy program, it must find a structure that can make that purpose a reality. While different groups use different organizational methods, there are some important elements that are common across initiatives. Most youth philanthropy programs are comprised of a core group of participants, Some programs have made conscious generally a majority of youth, who receive choices to keep membership small. Most intensive training and are immersed in phil- youth grantmaking boards in San Francisco anthropic methods. This group of young Bay Area nonprofit organizations, for exam- people usually makes small grants to groups ple, are composed of 10 or fewer youth mem- and organizations outside its circle of partic- bers. The Youth Leadership Institute limits ipants. In some cases, core participants are two youth grantmaking boards to 10 mem- making grantstotheir own members. bers in one group and seven members in the Groups seeking grants are most often led by other. The relatively small membership fos- youth, designed to serve youth or both. ters team development and promotes good Below we discuss different elements of decisionmaking. youth philanthropy programs. To supple- ment this information, we have also prepared Roles of Adults a table of six youth philanthropy programs Adults play important roles organized by major elements found in these as advisors to youth types of programs. You will find this table in philanthropists., Apleridix A. Half of the youth philanthropy programs we Governing Board Size surveyed had one or more adult voting members. On the Youth Leadership Institute's Grantmaking boards vary consid- Marin Youth Grants Board, an adult board erably in size and composition. member from the institute and a staff person Youth philanthropy groups tend to be large, from the Marin Community Foundation are averaging 24 youth members, according to full voting members. Other programs have those who responded to our survey. Youth even larger adult representation. Youth as philanthropy programs run by the Vancouver Resources of Central Indiana's six grant Foundation allow any young person interested boards for its six counties have one-third to in participating and capable of meeting very one-half youth representation, with adult minimal requirements to become a member, community leaders making up the remainder according to Program Director Barbara of the membership. Oates.29 Larger groups are good for programs PaulaAllen,directorof Youthas interested in increasing participation in phi- Resources of Central Indiana, says that from lanthropy and promoting service an&giving. the start, the Youth as Resources model

CHANGING THE FACE OFGIV415ANASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 21 always emphasized a strong youth-adult youth. It is essential for young people to have partnership. adult allies if they want to influence adult-led "Young people aren't acting in a vacu- institutions. But providing just the right um," Allen says. "The community consists of amount of support can be a tricky balance. people of all ages, ethnicities, and back- Youth grantmakers from Battle Creek and Ann grounds. We want youth to learn to work Arbor praised their advisors for their ability to with others in the community including balance the need to provide structure and adults not separate from them."30 information with the importance of stepping Giving adults voting power can be con- back and letting young people take the lead.31 troversial, however. Some young people and adults we spoke to thought that only youth Meeting) Frequency should be allowed to make decisions, and Programs generally meet at that adults, if given a vote, might domi- least once a month. nate the process. Nonetheless, many programs make convincing argu- Of our survey respondents, 39 percent meet ments about the positive influence weekly, 23 percent twice a month, and 38 per- of adult voting members on cent once a month. In programs like Ewing The community boards. The situation provides Marion Kauffman Foundation's Youth Advisory opportunities for adults and Board, Oakland's Youth Grants for Youth Action consists of people of all youth to work together and and"-San Francisco's Youth Initiated Projects, ages, ethnicities, and see each other as allies rather , grantmakersget together three or more than adversaries. And the times a month, often for several hours after backgrounds. We want experience of adults and school and/ on weekends. School-basedphilan- youth to learn to work 1 youth having equal power thr groups often meet one to two hours a °P./Y with others in the in making a decision can be week during the portion of the year dedicated to beneficial for both parties. the philanthropic curriculum. Groups that meet communityincluding "Both sides bring frequently are often those for which youth adults not separate something special to the development is an important goal. Geography, however,oftenprevents from them. table," Allen says. "Youth bring a level of commit- groups from meeting frequently. Members of Paula Allen, director, Iment and energy that is very The Sisterhood Fund of the Women's Foundation in San Francisco are scattered Youth as Resources of impressive to adults. Adults also come to appreciate that throughout central and northern California, Central Indiana youth can identify important so they meet for four intensive weekends problems. On the other hand, throughout the year. The young grantmakers adults bring with them their valu- at the Hawai'i Community Foundation's pro- able experiences. They can mentor gram live throughout the Hawaiian Islands. youth and teach them how organiza- Because of the costs of bringing them togeth- tions are run, how meetings are run, er, they can meet only 12-15 times per year. how you negotiate and collaborate. And the experience of having adults treat youth on a more adult level really contributes to these kids' maturation and development." Whether adults vote or not, all of the young people we spoke with acknowledged the critical role that adults play in supporting

22 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION Training Young people involved in grantmaking receive valuable skills training. All young people involved in youth philanthropy programs reported receiving some training for their work, according to our survey results. Most, especially those in the core (Terms oaf Service position of grantmaker, received critical train- Sixty to 89 percent 1...... _Boardsmust balance the need ing in key areas of leadership, like facilitating of young people who forontinuity and experience meetings, making decisions, and planning and responded to our surveys with a desire to involve as many evaluatingprojects. Young people from reported that they young people as possible. Quilombo's Making Change in Oakland, received training in the California, for example, undergo an intensive following areas: Many programs encourage young people to summer training session in preparation for Running meetings participate for multi-year terms. Three-quar- the year's grantmalcing.34 ters of the youth grantmakers in the Michigan Most programsplacethegreatest Planning projects Community Foundations' Youth Project emphasis on skills most closely related to Evaluating grant proposals return each year.32 The Hawai'i Community philanthropy, such as making decisions, eval- Facilitating discussions Foundation has college-age board members uating grant proposals, reviewing budgets in their youth philanthropy program who and understanding youth and community Making grant decisions have been participating since their early high issues. Fewer groups, but still the majority, Understanding community school years. also provide training in other kinds of lead- and youth issues Longer terms provide grantmakers with ership skills, such as making presentations, Making presentations a deeper experience and lend stability to the running meetings, planning projects, and Working with diverse groups organizations that sponsor youth philanthro- facilitating discussions. py projects. At the East Palo Alto Money Youth members of these boards are, in Evaluating programs. Crew in the San Francisco Bay Area, all the most cases, receiving practical opportunities young participants we spoke with were enter- to put these leadership skills to work. Youth ing their second year and noted that the respondents reported that most of the time, group's dynamics and decisionmaking abili- young people facilitate philanthropy meet- ties have steadily improved over time. The ings, while 40 percent reported that their advisorattheHawai'iCommunity facilitator was an adult. In the several youth Foundation says senior members are better philanthropy group meetings we observed, able to confidently take leadership roles. But adults and youth were generally working there is a downside, she says. Long-time together to run meetings. group members can develop a sense of enti- There . was less emphasis on studying tlement that can be detrimenta1.33 philanthropy's history. Less than half of Other groups make adding new blood a youth participants, according to both adult greater priority. The rules of the Youth respondents and young people, are learning Initiated Projects of San Francisco ensure about past and current philanthropists. that at least six members of the 10-member Again, the skills youth philanthropists are board will be first-time participants. learning how to lead, study proposals and programs, work together and present their viewsare all abilities and interests that have been found to improve academic interest and achievement and are likely to contribute to future success in the workplace.

1)7

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 23 Comm Unity Service Maly youth philanthropy initiatives encourage direct -community service. One adult staff person at a youth philanthropy group we spoke to wants to ensure that the board isn't too removed from the struggles it was funding observing, but not participating. That's a common concern at many pro- in Community Service are required to partic- grams, which often include the expectation ipate in a service event in their high school or that young people be involved in some type of surrounding community. Youth grantmakers direct service. in the Surdna Foundation's Student Service Community work serves a number of and Philanthropy Project were assigned as purposes. It helps instill in young people the project directors to the projects they funded values and habits of giving and service. It also and participated in their implementation.35 helps them understand community issues and Youth service by grantmaking boards is the challenges of project planning, thus prevalent in foundation-based models as improving the quality of their grantmaking. well. Local grantmaking boards that partici- Most school-based philanthropy pro- pate in the Michigan Community Foun- grams incorporate leadership and service. In dations' Youth Project are encouraged to cre- Colorado, youth involved in El Pomar Youth ate subcommittees to identify and organize service projects in which members can participate. 0

24 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION 67MbIllEithqProcess

aking grants, mostly to groups led by and serving young people, is the core concern of most formal youth philanthropy programs. Based on data from the Michigan Database and Average Grant Size information from programs in Oakland, Grant size varies widely across California, youth-led groups gave youth philanthropy programs. between $5 million and $10 million in Some programs granted less than $100 per grants in the year 2000. Because many request, while others regularly made grants of initiatives are not in this database, and $5,000 or more. Of the 70 youth philanthro- some of those listed did not report grant py groups for which we had data, the average amounts, the true total of grants by youth grant size in 2000 was $2,252. Almost half of groups nationwide may be considerably the grants were for $1,000 or less. Programs higher. While the figures are impressive, affiliated with community-based organiza- they represent less than one per'cent of tions, foundations, or partnerships generally what foundations grant each year to had more money to distribute and made larg- adult-led programs that serveyouth.36 er grants than those based in schools.

Granting Pool Fundraising Most groups have relatively Many youth philanthropy pro- small granting pools. grams encourage young people to raise funds for all or a part of In 2000, the average grantmaking pool among their grantmaking. groups that submitted information to the Michigan Database was $29,693. Half of those Young people no longer have to depend on groups were giving $15,750 or less per year; car washes and bake sales to raise money. more than one-third were granting $10,000 They are using direct solicitations of adult or less. However, there are several groups of donors and grant proposals of their own to young peoplemostly working with founda- raise money for philanthropy. tions or community organizationsthat have An example is Common Cents New control over much larger amounts of money. York, where youth from hundreds of schools AtleastsevenMichiganCommunity across the city gathered almost $500,000 in Foundations' Youth Advisory Councils dis- pennies, other coins, cash and checks during tributed $60,000 or more in 2000. In that 2000. They used the money to make grants to same year, five grantmaking boards in the San local organizations and student-led projects. Francisco Bay Area granted more than The Michigan Community Foundations' $70,000 each, and Youth as Resources Youth Project and El Pomar Foundation's ofCentralIndianagranted Youth in Community Service program in $165,000 to youth groups in six Colorado are two projects that expect young counties. (These figures exclude people to raise matching funds for grantmak- three initiatives that combined ing. If students raise $500, participating the grantmaking resources schools in El Pomar Youth in Community of several school-based Service receive a $7,500 match from the foun- grantingsites.)37 dation for grantmaking in their school and community. Youth grantmakers in Michigan

CHANGING THE FACE OF G101'N.rd'. AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 25 I

To get a better picture of monies being distributed, we conducted a review of recently-funded grants from selected youth philanthropy programs. We examined more than 90 grants from the Michigan Database and found that the projects being funded represented a broad range of aims. Some projects provided needed services, while others were designed to spur social action or systems change. Among the projects we reviewed were those that focused on building communities, providing advocacy or organization. Still others were aimed more at individuals, helping are encouraged to ask adult donors directly them develop skills or further their education for contributions, through calls and commu- and providing positive alternatives for youth. nity presentations.38 Projects thatfulfillpressing community Trained to review proposals, youth grant- needs, provide basic services or offer positive makers also sometimes write them. After alternatives for youth tend to be the most learning about a funding opportunity from popular, while organizing, advocacy and their adult advisor, the Na `Opio 0 ke Ala social action projects were less common. In Hoku Youth Grant-making Board of the the San Francisco Bay Area, we found that Hawai'i Community Foundation secured a youth -led projects addressing issues of identi- grant from a private foundation. They used ty, sexuality, race and diversity, as well as those the money to make grants to community that promote youth voices are prevalent. projects in their state.39 Outreach and Assistance to Typical Grant Recipients Applicants Many youth philanthropy grants Programs must sometimes use go to programs that serve creative strategies to reach and young people. assist youth-led programs. Youth philanthropy grants went to youth- Many youth philanthropy groups are com- serving programs, both those led by adults mitted to making grants to programs led by and those led by youth, and to other adult-led youth. But ensuring that those young poten- community groups. Most of our respondents tial grant applicants know about their oppor- awarded grants to all three types of groups. tunities can be a challenge. At least 89 percent of those we surveyed If a youth philanthropy board is affiliated provide support to youth-led projects. The with a foundation that already funds youth- Michigan Community. Foundations' Youth serving organizations, the youth board can Project is an important exception. While rely on the foundation's existing outreach some YACs do support youth-led projects, efforts. But youth philanthropy groups with- more are making grants to projects proposed out that advantage have to use a range of by adult-led organizations that serve youth. sophisticated tactics. In programs based in schools, youth-led Youth Grants for Youth Actionin groups are often, but not always, the recipi- Oakland, California hires young staff to reach ents. School-based youth grantmakers often out to youth in schools, community centers are involved in the implementation of the and informal meeting places. These young projects they fund. staffers help prospective applicants develop In nonprofit community organizations, project ideas and write proposals. grants overwhelmingly support youth-led Youth philanthropists also reach out to projects. adult staff at schools, youth centers, and other

26 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION 30 places that serve young people, making sure ects receive assistance from their own adult they know about the grant opportunities avail- leadership or from staff in the sponsoring able for young people. Youth at the East Palo organization, funders with limited resources Alto Money Crew in California brainstorm may not consider this a priority. And, because youth groups they want to target, then distrib- many youth-led projects are short-lived, fun- ute application materials to these groups. ders may not believe it is necessary to build Youth philanthropy programs whose the capacity of the youth-led groups to sus- priority is providing funds to youth-led proj- tain their projects or take on follow-up ects are more likely to have an intensive infra- projects. structure to assist applicants. A good example However, at the Youth Leader- is Youth as Resources of Central Indiana. In ship Institute we have found that Youth as Resources' six counties, multiple youth are looking for support workshops taught by youth and adults are that adult advisors may not nn available to help grantseekers develop service be able to provide. In 1999, projects and write applications.40 we asked young people Youth on our.boards have Another example is the Ann Arbor Area what types of assistance the opportunity to give away Community Foundation's Youth Council in they wanted for their Michigan, which has devised a creative way funded projects. The a lot more money than the to ensure that youth who have ideas for dif- most frequentre- average community member ferent community projects get access to the quests were for help donates in a given year. support they need. At a local teen center withfundraising, called the Neutral Zone (a hub for a variety getting their proj- There's power attached to of youth activities including theater, poetry, ects started, pro- that, but along with it the music, and community service), youth from moting their proj- across the community can "drop in" and ects and learning kids come to realize the meet with staff people who can teach them how to deal with responsibility they've taken about how to apply for a grant from the the media.In on in deciding who and what Youth Council.'" response to their Applications and other promotional requests, we devel- projects get funded. They materials are critical outreach tools. In some oped a grant-seek- understand that it's an cases, youth and adult applicants received the ing workshop along same materials. But many youth philanthro- with a media skills opportunity to open doors py organizations have created materials workshop. 0 and make things happen. designed to appeal to young people. These are usually written in accessible language and Terry Lind, director of clearly outline the application process. programs and evaluation, With its youth-friendly directions and Community Foundation colorful graphics, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation's Youth Advisory Board's RFP is Silicon Valley one important example of materials designed for youth. Some groups are taking even more creativeapproaches.Oakland's Making DU Change designed their application and grant- writing workbook in the form of a comic book. Once a program receives a grant, its leaders may need help to carry out their project successfully. We found few youth philanthropy boards that offered such support. There are several possible explanations for the situation. Because youth-led community proj- 31

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 27 Dedslonmaltinq 7rocess

How Grant Decisions Are Made Young people give a creative edge to grantmaking. Young people have come up with many inno- youth philanthropy groups use a vative ways to make granting decisions. Large number of different methods for eval- grantmaking boards, like those found in uating the needs of their communities Michigan, often create subcommittees to set and the strengths and weaknesses of up and manage the decisionmaking process grant proposals. But when the time and, in many cases, make recommendations comes to choose the programs that will that the youth board then approves. Young receive grants, most youth philanthropy people at the Ewing Marion Kauffman groups give young people the final say. Foundation's Youth Advisory Board each read three or four proposals, make recommendations, and present them to the entire Needs Assessments group for a final decision." Youth philanthropists base fund- Other youth boards, like the Youth ing decisions on an understand- Initiated Projects Review Board, have created a structured decisionmaking process to han- ing of their communities. dle the significant competition for funds. In a Assessing their communities' strengths and typical grant cycle, requests outnumber avail- weaknesseshelps youth philanthropists able funds by 3 to 1. To address this situation, become more connected to and knowledge- all board members read every application able of their communities. Community map- and use a score sheet to evaluate proposals. ping, needs assessments and other forms of The board assigns members to be point per- community research provide many youth sons for some of the proposals, with the philanthropy groups focus. The Council of understanding that they will take the lead in Michigan Foundations recommends that all all decisions regarding the proposal they are youth philanthropy programs conduct assess- assigned. All applicants are required to make ments of community strengths and needs at a presentation and have a discussion with the least once every three years as the basis for review board. After each presentation, the grantmaking priorities.42 Common Cents member assigned to the proposal helps board New York, a New York City youth philanthro- members clarify the purpose of the proposal, py organization with programs in hundreds evaluate its strengths and weaknesses and of city schools, has a detailed process to help determine whether it meets the board's crite- individual school sites identify issues and ria. The board then decides whether to fund organizationstosupport.Thisprocess the.proposal or ask for more information. includes selecting a community service area, Some groups, such as Oakland's Youth identifying student interests and priorities, Grants for Youth Action, have enough money investigating community organizations or to fund all requests. Their focus, they explain, proposing their own solutions, and develop- is to help ensure the success of each program ing criteria to help select projects.43 they fund.43

28 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION 3 ') The Final Decisionmakers Youth typically have final authority to award grants. Most of the youth philanthropy programs that we surveyed give final decisionmaking authority directly to young people,as opposed to having them make recommendations to a higher authority. We found few programs based out of community organizations that did not give young people final decision authority. This was the case for groups giving out small amounts of money less than $10,000 per year as well as for groups giving out more than $100,000 per year. At many foundation-based youth philanthropy programs, young people do not The impressive work of the have absolute authority to award grants. Foundation's youth council Instead, they pass on their recommendations encouraged our board of to the foundations' boards of directors. Even in these situations, though, adult board trustees to see the youth as members tend to have a very hands-off a resource [and] they approach; we did not find any programs in decided to add a youth which the board of directors failed to ratify all the recommendations made by young council member to its ranks people. This system has the benefit of con- to include a youth necting youth grantmakers to foundation staff and trustees. perspective. Youth respondents are somewhat divided Martha Bloom, on where the ultimate responsibility for decisions about grants should lie. Thirty-one per- program officer, Ann Arbor cent definitely or mostly agreed that adults Area Community Foundation should have final say, while 69 percent mostly Youth Council or definitely thought that youth should have this authority. Interestingly, only 29 percent had a strong opinionstrongly agreed or strongly disagreedon this issue. Adults who responded were only a little less ambivalent. These results suggest that young people want and need significant adult support and par- ticipationin grantmaking decisions, even if they ultimately have the final say. 0

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 29 aeneigKs oV Youth Phl anthro Benefits for Young Grantmakers Young people participating in philanthropy gain important skills, learn about their com- ormal program evaluations and our munities, deepen their commitment to com- surveys confirm that young people munity involvement, and develop important, _reap many important benefits from positive relationships with other youth and participating in youth philanthropy. But adults, our survey found. Most of our they aren't the only beneficiaries. The respondents thought they were more pre- adult-led groups that work with youth pared to go to college as a result of their par- boards also benefit. So do the young peo- ticipation. Adults involved concurred with ple who apply for and receive grants. And the young people's views of the benefits of the final impact is felt by the communi- philanthropy programs. ties touched by the work of programs The chart below summarizes the results funded through youth philanthropy. of findings from the youth survey.

Percentage of youth board members who respond "A Lot" or "A Fair Amount" when asked how much the program helped them:

Learn how to make better decisions 9 3 % Learn about issues that peers face in your community8 8 % Become better at planning and facilitating meetings 8 % Feel more comfortable sharing ideas in a group 8 3 % Feel more comfortable in a leadership role 8 % Feel more comfortable giving presentations in public 7 4 % Be more committed to helping out the community % Develop positive relationships with youth that you would otherwise never have met 8 7 % Develop a strong, positive relationship with at least one adult 79% Prepare for college or higher education 3 9 % Increase their interest in higher education 3 9 %

34 30 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION Other evaluations of youth philanthropy Benefits for Adult-Led programs are generally consistent with our results. In a comprehensive evaluation of the Organizations Michigan Community Foundations' Youth Young people practicing philanthropy can Project from 1991-1997, evaluators found also influence the policies of adult-led organ- that most youth grantmakers "felt like they izations, both their own sponsors and groups were making a difference, had learned about they fund. the needs in their communities, had learned In a recent study commissioned by the leadership skills, had reflected on their values National 4-H Council and funded by the and had networked with other teens and Surdna Foundation, researchers found that adult community leaders."46 The evaluator involving youth in organizational decisions also found that participation affected their helps bring clarity to the organization's mis- choice of studies or career path. An evalua- sion,improves adultinvolvement and tion of a similarly structured youth philan- responsiveness to the community, improves thropy initiative in British Columbia found organizational commitment to inclusion and comparable impacts on grantmakers.47 representation, helps raise funds and helps We continued to get confirmation of organizations reach out to the community in these benefits in conversations with youth. more diverse ways.51 One young person at Oakland's Youth Grants Anecdotal evidence from YACs in the for Youth Action says that being on the board Michigan communities of Ann Arbor, Baraga helped him "learn how to read more."48 and Battle Creek suggests that the presence Other members of this group reported that and accomplishments of youth grantmaking their critical thinking and facilitation skills committees sometimes inspires adult-led have improved. Still others say that being on organizations to increase youth involvement the board helped them to be more open and in their own programs and decisions.52 For share their points of view. At the East Palo example, some Michigan community foun- Alto Money Crew in the San Francisco Bay dations are inviting young people onto Area, young grantmakers say they had boards that were once the exclusive domain acquired a better understanding of their of adults. At times, the influence is more community and improved skills for working direct. Some Michigan YACs require pro- in a group.49 In Battle Creek, Michigan, one grams that receive grants to better involve member of the youth philanthropy program youth in organizational decisions.53 had such a positive experience that she want- Martha Bloom, program officer and staff ed to work in a foundation as an adult.50 advisor for the Ann Arbor Area Community There is good reason to believe that par- Foundation Youth Council, describes how ticipation in youth philanthropy may spur the impressive work of the foundation's academic success among young people. youth council encouragedits board of Students who participate in after school pro- trustees to see the youth as a resource for the grams tend to earn better grades and conduct board itself. Ultimately, the board decided to themselves better in school, according to add a youth council member to its ranks in numerous studies. They're also less likely to order to include a youth perspective.54 drop out, use drugs or drink alcohol. Bloom says that while the youth on the Furthermore, youth philanthropy teach- board have benefited in various ways, includes many of the skills and interests directly ing learning how to express themselves in a related to academic achievement: leadership, room full of high powered adults, the board of self-esteem, problem-solving skills, resource- trustees has also become a better organization fulness, interest in reading and commitment because of its inclusion of a young person. to community service, according to many "I think the adults have learned a lot adults and youth involved in the field. more about what it takes to be inclusive and 35

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 31 bring people with different points of view that their host organizations are taking them and levels of understanding onto their more seriously because of the philanthropy board," Bloom says. "They've also learned program. Adults that we surveyed felt simi- that these young people have a lot to offer. It's larly to the youth respondents. just a matter of their being able to tap into it appropriately." Staff at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Benefits for Grantseekers In Michigan, [young Foundation say that youth participa- and Grantees tion "brought a great deal to the Most youth philanthropy groups are interest- philanthropists'] strength board" and that some adult mem- ed in funding projects led by youth. These and visibility prompted bers have considered inviting philanthropy groups are having significant young people to formally join.55 the inclusion of at least impact on youth who are seeking grants and In San Francisco, a youth- leading projects. two young people from directed project funded by We did not survey youth applicants seek- Michigan grantmaking Youth Initiated Projects that ing and receiving funding from youth philan- providedfreeScholastic thropy programs for this report. However, boards on local Aptitude Test (SAT) prepa- many national studies have looked at the indi- committees that ratorycoursestolow- vidual benefits that young people gain when redistribute millions in income teenssparkeda they plan and carry out their own project ideas, major citywide initiative by and some youth philanthropy programs have funds from a recent the San Francisco Public also made regular assessments of grantees. Tobacco Corporation Library to do the same. In the process of identifying community In Michigan, young phi- Settlement. needs, coming together to develop a plan lanthropists around the state with an adult advisor, writing a grant propos- Robert Collier, president, successfully lobbied the state al, making a presentation, and carrying out a legislature to allow young people project, youth grantseekers derive tangible Council of Michigan under 18 to legally serve on non- benefits. Most grantees who sought and won Foundations profit boards. Their strength and grants from San Francisco's Youth Initiated visibility prompted the inclusion of Projects, for example, felt better about their atleast two young people from connectionstotheir communities and Michigan grantmaking boards on local thought that they could improve their com- committees that redistribute millions in munities, according to a series of phone funds from a recent Tobacco Corporation interviews conducted by staff with grantees Settlement.56 between 1998 and 2001. The majority of In a 1990 study of a youth philanthropy grantees thought they had improved their program in Indianapolis, Indiana, evaluators writing, planning, group decisionmaking, found changes in adult attitudes, including public speaking and budgeting skills as well, interest in making organizational changes abilities that can lead directly to greater aca- that include youth voices, as a result of suc- demic success. cessful youth-led projects.57 More than ten years ago, the National Young people we surveyed generally Crime Prevention Council also set out to eval- agreed that adult attitudes and organization- uate how their three-city Youth as Resources al policies that impact youth were changing philanthropy program was affecting youth because of their presence. Forty-three percent whoreceivedgrants,amongothers. strongly believed that organizations that Independent evaluators found improvements served youth were increasing youth participa- in youth attitudes about community service. tion in decisions. Seventy-seven percent of They also found evidence that the young peo- youth surveyed strongly or mostly agreed that ple had learned some important skills and adult leaders are changing policies that increased their self-confidence.58 As the enhance this participation. More than 40 per- National Crime Prevention Council points out cent of youth respondents also firmly believe in its Youth as Resources study, the benefits 36 32 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION youth derive depend on a number of factors, Neutral Zone Youth and adults from Ann including the length of time young people Arbor worked together to create a safe, posi- work on projects, the guidance they get from tive meeting place for area teens. The Youth adults, the issues they choose to focus on, the Council from the Ann Arbor Area Community impact the projects have, and the degree to Foundation provided more than $80,000 in which young people direct the projects.59 grants and gave hands-on assistance to make While young people clearly are disap- this space a reality. MC battles, theater prac- pointed if a project they propose does not tice, poetry workshops, and tutoring are just receive funding, it doesn't mean they don't some of the things offered at Neutral Zone. derive some benefit as well. The act of plan- Youth are in leadership roles at all organiza- ning a project and preparing and presenting a tional levels. proposal all build solid skills, even if the proposal itself is unsuccessful, according to dis- IntelligentYouthExploringSociety cussions with the adult allies of young people Oakland's Youth Grants for Youth Action gave whose projects did not receive funding. a small grant to Intelligent Youth Exploring Society to publish and distribute a magazine written and managed by young people. The Benefits for the Community magazine will focus on changing negative Youth philanthropy programs are special perceptions of youth and providing a forum because they have the potential to reach well for youth opinions on issues that impact beyond their core participants to improve the young people. community itself. Programs with sizable grant pools are better able to create signifi- Student Leaders Against Sexual cant community changes. Programs which Harassment (SLASH) SLASH received can effectively support youth grantseekers $7,000 from YLI's Youth Initiated Projects for and grantees in developing successful proj- two projects. After extensive research, youth ects, or who give funds to adult-led organiza- from San Francisco's Mission District decided tions that need less assistance, are also more to focus on the problem of sexual harassment likely to see significant social improvements. in area high schools. They organized, publi- cized and staffed a one-day conference on the Below is a partial list of youth philanthropy projects that had a significant impact on issue, which drew more than 150 youth. Youth planners also ran workshops, held a forum and local communities. kicked off organizing efforts against sexual DJ 2000Recognizing the power of music, harassment in individual schools. Next, they teen leaders at San Francisco's Booker T. used YIP funds to train and support individual Washington Community Center established a youth organizers in four middle and high recording studio at their facility. Young people schools in the city. learned how to mix music, create CDs, operate recording equipment, and organize DJ dances Brocton Skateboarders Kids First Grants of and other events. Youth Leadership Institute's Fredonia, New York gave a grant to the Brocton Youth Initiated Projects provided more than Skateboarders to develop a skateboard park. Grant funds paid for concrete and the youth $3,000 for equipment and start-up costs. The group received in-kind donations of other planners organized peer-training sessions for materials and supplies from the municipality. the equipment, and created relationships with youth-led businesses tosellthe music. Operation Smile Youth from a rural commu- Because of this studio, youth from around the nity organized dental care for low-income chil- communitybeganutilizingthecenter. dren in this program supported by Youth as According to one planner, the studio "put Resources of Central Indiana. The young peo- Booker T. on the map!" ple not only raised funds for dental care, but also convinced dentists to reduce their fees. 0

37 CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 33 MeminmendacHons RECOMMENDATION Expand youth philanthropy. There are two ways in which youth philanthropy should be expanded. The scope of ur recommendations are geared youth philanthropy should be broadened to toward organizations seeking to include more youth participation on adult- strengthen or expand their youth led philanthropic boards. Also, more founda- philanthropy programs and to funders tions and other potential funders should start and others considering the development their own youth philanthropy programs with of new programs or larger initiatives. youth-led philanthropic boards. Those goals require convincing two partiestoget involved: young people and the foundations RECOMMENDATION and other organizations that sponsor philan- Use youth philanthropy as a thropic activity. Both adult board members powerful tool for community and youth may need some education about youth development. youth philanthropy and some opportunities Few programs consciously plan youth philan- to test the concept before they commit to it. thropy programs as tools for community youth Below are some strategies for preparing development, even though the programs incor- organizations and youth for participation in porate many community youth development youth philanthropy. principles. Those principles involve creating opportunities for young people chances to Strategies for Increasing Youth develop important skills, form positive rela- Participation on Adult-led Boards tionships with adults and peers, build stronger connections to community and school, take * Educate foundation board members creative action and practice leadership. Those about the contributions that young peo- opportunities must all come in an environ- ple bring to decisions and their rights to ment young people view as safe. be involved in decisions that affect them. Providing these experiences for young Foundations can strengthen their outlook people will create healthier, more well-round- by giving youth greater philanthropic ed individuals with higher self-esteem, responsibility. improved academic achievement and better * Ensure that foundation or other organi- chances for success as adults, experts in youth zation board work includes areas that development agree. build on young people's strengths, includ- Youth philanthropy programs should ing knowledge of their peers' needs, risk- embrace and actively plan for these goals. A taking and creativity.Young people are few programs have tried to make this formal more likely to feel comfortable with sub- connection, but more attention to it would jects they know. likely help all youth philanthropy programs. Not only would it aid the young people * Train adult board members in working involved, it could improve fundraising for with young people.Adult board members youth grants. By presenting youth philan- need to devote more time to learning thropy as a powerful tool for youth develop- how to include young people in board ment that can impact a large number of discussions and activities. They should young people, program planners can argue also be aware that they may have to make convincingly for greater investments by foun- special considerations in working with dations and government agencies. young people. For example, adult boards

34 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION 38 that want to include youth shouldn't hold meetings during school hours. Adult members should decide what they expect from a youth board member and make that expectation clear to everyone concerned. This kind of preparation can help avoid misunderstandings.60

* Try to have at least two youth on an adult-led board. A new experience can be intimidating; two peer allies can support RECOMMENDATION each other, boost each other's confi- \Increase the diversity of dence, and increase the level of youth \grantmakers. participation.61 The leaders and sponsors of youth philan- * Recruit older youth and young adults to thropy programs are conscious of the need participate on adult-led grantmaking for diversity among core participants, we boards. Foundations may be more com- found, and many are making special efforts fortable with including young people to reach out to youth who are not generally with more maturity and life experience. included in traditional leadership roles or who are marginalized because of their race, Strategies for Increasing Support for ethnicity, sexual orientation, or class. Despite Youth-led Boards those efforts, though, there are a number of groups that should be better represented in * Allow foundation trustees, staff, and the youth philanthropy movement: other adults to serve as voting members Poor and working class youth on youth-led grantmaking boards. Middle school students Foundation board members are more likely to feel comfortable with youth phi- Young people who are not in school, lanthropy programs if some adults are both those who did not finish high also involved in making decisions. school and young adults who have graduated from high school * Foster formal exchanges and discussions Lesbian, gay, bisexual and between adult and youth philanthropists transgender youth throughout the field. Encourage adult trustees from foundations and other Youth of color. organizations that do not sponsor or fund youth philanthropy programs to We recommend a number of strategies to attend these sessions. improve diversity:

* Recruit older youth and young adults to * Provide incentives: Some programs offer participate on youth-led grantmaking transportation allowances, meals, and cash boards. Just as for adult-led boards, stipends to encourage youth to participate. foundations and other possible funders While incentives work, they may also seem may be more comfortable with youth- to conflict with core program values, like led boards that include young people volunteerism. It should be noted, however, with more maturity and life experience. that major national service programs, like YouthBuild, AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, give stipends and educational awards to their participants.

CHANGING THEFf3E9FGIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 35 * Strengthen training and support for RECOMMENDATION ) youth grantmakers:Without intensive Encourageouth}o plan for training and team building, programs and fund projects that move run the risk that the most prepared beyond service. young people will dominate, and youth with much to contribute, but fewer for- Many programs funded through youth phi- mal leadership skills, may not fully par- lanthropy are focused on providing communi- ticipate. Leveling the playing field so that ty service, and do that well. But in many cases, all youth feel comfortable participating the programs treat the symptoms of commu- can require holding frequent meetings nity problems without ever attacking the (two or more times per month), repeat- underlying causes. We encourage organiza- ing training opportunities so all can tions to see youth philanthropy as a viable way attend, providing many occasions for to dig deeper into the roots of community youth to practice their newly acquired problems. We believe such activism is a good skills, and giving individualized attention way to develop young people's capabilities and to those grantmakers who need it. to get marginalized youth and nontraditional Intense training and team building leaders involved in their communities. activities, however, require more staff The Jewish Fund for Justice, the Ford A small grantmaking time,something programs must Foundation,the Edward W. Hazen group facilitates the budget for. For programs with limit- Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Surdna Foundation are all formally kind of mentoring and ed resources, one solution is to limit the size of a grant board, thus limit- investing in programs that promote activism. support that allows ingtheamountoftraining By comparing youth service to youth organizing, the Jewish Fund for Justice identi- youth from under- required.PeggyLoper, youth fies an important path for youth philanthropy: resourced communities development director for Youth GrantsforYouthActionin "Community service programs have to gain skills and Oakland, argues thata small resulted in thousands of hours of service grantmaking group facilitates the confidence to to clean parks, assist the elderly and kind of mentoring and support tutor young children, but rarely have participate effectively. that allows youth from under- they helped participants to gain a better resourced communities to gain the Peggy Loper, development understanding of the root causes of skills and confidence to participate director, Youth Grants poverty around them and how to effectively. 62 for Youth Action address them. Moreover, funding restric- * Fund more youth-driven projects: tions have often prohibited young people Young people who are able to create in these programs who became con- and lead a program worthy of a grant are cerned about local issueslike over- DU often ideal candidates for membership crowded classrooms, or illegal dumping on the grantmaking board itself. By solic- of toxinsfrom carrying out advocacy iting and funding more youth-led proj- and organizing. While young people ects, grantmakers can develop a deeper clearly benefit from community service pool of talented young people to target programs, this approach is not intend- for board membership. ednor does it have the capacityto bring about long-lasting change or build * Fund projects that appeal to a wide organizations that can hold public offi- range of young people:Young people are cials and institutions accountable. While more likely to participate in youth phi- [service programs] have touched the lanthropy if they feel it is addressing lives of thousands of youth, and some- issues important to them. By including times have even served as anchors in projects of interest to low-income and their communities, for the most part marginalized communities, philanthropy their goal has been to serve people with- programs improve their chances of in current institutional structures, not to recruiting in those communities. 40 challenge [those structures] ."63 36 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION Support for moving beyond service is ful programs. Increasing the size of grants also glowing in national youth serving will allow for more significant successes. organizations. The National 4-H Council's Organization leaders who are interested Innovation Center for Community and in increasing funding but also want to mini- Youth Development, in a report commis- mize the risk of bad investments can imple- sioned by the Ford Foundation, argues that ment safeguards. One is to use two-stage "civic activism has increasingly become a grants that require that programs show suc- strategy for achieving youth leadership devel- cess before they receive more money. Another opment and civic participation of marginal- is to require intensive training to help young ized young people."64 They recommend that grantseekers develop proposals and carry philanthropic organizations make grants as them out effectively. accessible and open to young people as possible. They also suggest funding projects at the neighborhood and local level, instead of at REFMMENDATI ION the national level.65 Create endowments to sustain yotithgrantmakingover time.

RECOMMENDATION Foundations and community-based organi- Increase the size of grants. zations interested in creating or expanding youth philanthropy initiatives should consid- Change can happen with very small amounts er seeding permanent endowments to them. of money; however, long-term solutions to In Michigan, each YAC has a permanent community problems will occur only after endowment from which it draws its yearly significant financial investments. For youth grantmakingfunds.Endowmentsfor philanthropy programs to promote organiza- Michigan youth grantmakers have secured a tional and community change, more money permanent role for young people in impor- should be available for them to distribute. tant community decisions. Real money brings real power. Without the control of significant dollars, youth philanthropy runs the risk of being seen as practice RECOMMENDATION or mock philanthropy. Increase fundraising by youth. If the significance of youth participation in community decisionmaking is determined There are many advantages to encouraging by the percentage of funds over which young youth philanthropy participants to raise people have control, then we clearly have a money for grants. Obviously, the activity long way to go. Less than one percent of all increases the amount of money available to funds distributed through foundations and award. But it also introduces young people to local governments to programs that benefit a skill that will be important if they choose to youth come in the form of grants awarded by continue in philanthropy. It also means they youth. This statistic reinforces the argument will have a pot of money that is clearly theirs, that youth philanthropy programs are much that hasn't been given to them from an out- more about the personal development of side, adult authority. grantmakers and grantees or about the culti- As the amount of money that young vation of an ethic of giving rather than about people control increases, so does the respect the potential impact that grants could have that adults afford to youth. Money can be on communities. powerful, and by training young people to But we question whether youth philan- raise funds, we offer one way for young peo- thropy should be limited in its aims. Young ple to get power. people have impressed foundation boards of trustees with the care and thoughtfulness they bring to grantmaking decisions. And their grants have helped create many success- 41

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 37 (------RECOMMENDATION Publicize the successes of youth projects Promote progress to adults who may be competing for funds...... through conflict. * In instances where competition between So far, youth philanthropy has been remark- adults and youth over funds may emerge, ably free of conflict. Without exception, the encourage partnerships among youth and adults we surveyed supported giving young adult project planners. That way, adults people final authority to award grants. The will see youth as resources for their pro- adult advisors of youth philanthropy programs and organizations, not as rivals. grams also report receiving general support from other staff and management within their organizations. RECOMK1NDATION Of course, one reason for the lack of con- Give youth-led projects flict may be the relatively small stakes speciarattention. involved. As we have mentioned, the amount Expanding the commitment to youth philan- of money youth philanthropy groups control thropy will require more than just attracting, is less than one percent of the funds that go training and supporting the young people each year to programs aimed at helping youth. who award grants. We must also invest in As the granting pools that young people training the young people who seek and control grow, some conflict with adults is receive grants. probably inevitable. Some examples of poten- Some youth philanthropy initiatives help tial conflict are already starting to surface. For young grantseekers by holding grant appli- example, young people at a San Francisco cant workshops, sponsoring teen-to-teen Beacon Center (an after-school program for planning support and distributing handouts children and families), applied for funding and workbooks. from YIP to challenge the existing academic But we recognize that training all the power structure and advocate for a stronger young people who apply for grants requires role for young people in school decisions. In resources that some organizations may not Oakland, community leaders have committed have. A less taxing approach is to coach and significant funds to youth-initiated projects. support the adult advisors who work with But that commitment is being challenged by young grant applicants. These front-line some adult-led organizations, which charge workers, who are often hired for their ability that the youth groups haven't proved their to connect with youth and may be relatively effectiveness. young themselves, are generally working with Concern and resistance from adults few resources and without much formal should not be seen as a sign of failure, but training or support. Bringing these adults rather a hint of success. The emergence of together allows them to discuss strategies, conflict suggests that the ideas and issues that identify and resolve challenges to supporting young people are dealing with are important youth-driven initiatives, and develop tools and that the resources they control have for engaging youth in planning projects and grown too significant to ignore. writing grants. Good examples of ways to If it is not thoughtfully addressed, how- support adult allies are found in Youth as ever, conflict could also undermine the youth Resources of Central Indiana and the Youth philanthropy movement's progress. We rec- Leadership Institute's targeted trainings for ommend a number of strategies for handling adult supporters of youth-directed projects. conflicts constructively:

Identify areas of potential tension between young grantmakers and their adult supporters and create in advance clear procedures for resolving conflicts. 42

38 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION Create important youthadult partnerships. One of the great attributes of youth philanthropy is its potential to bring young people and adults together to work on a project on equal footing, with both sides contributing to In a comprehensive the final product. Whether adult advisors evaluation of the Michigan vote on youth philanthropy boards or not, it Community Foundations' is essential that they be actively involved with young grantmakers. Young people benefit Youth Project, evaluators from the guidance and experience that adults found that most youth can provide. Adults gain an opportunity to see the world through a young person's eyes. grantmakers 'felt like they Organization leaders should consider were making a difference, establishing formal mentoring relationships had learned about the needs between adults and young grantmakers. And they must recognize that adults working with in their communities, had youth walk a fine line, having to provide learned leadership skills, structure and direction without seeming to had reflected on their values dictate the process. Adult allies would benefit from training focused on maintaining that and had networked with delicate balance. 0 other teens and adult community leaders.'

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 39 E ARE EXCITED ABOUT WHAT WE FOUND THROUGH THIS CLOSE LOOK at youth philanthropy. Foundations, schools, nonprofit organizations and local governments across the country are encouraging youth involvement in philanthropy. Much work is still concentrated in the Midwest, Northeast, and the San Francisco Bay Area, but programs are developing quick- ly in other parts of the country as well. Youth involvement in philanthropy, we found, is having positive impacts on young people's commitment to service and giving. It is also transforming foundations and influencing the ideas of their staff and trustees. Adult-led groups receiving grants from youth philanthropists are becoming more open to ConcOuskm 1 youth involvement in programmatic and organizational decisions. Youth philanthropy is also encouraging young people to take action in their communities. We are seeing both short- and long-term changes in communities because of youth action. Youth philanthropy can be a powerful mechanism for community youth development and can spur academic achievement. It helps organizations and communities create safe places for young people to develop skills that can be used in the classroom and eventually in the workplace. It allows youth to contribute to the community, have positive relationships with adults, make important decisions, and take meaningful action. Because it creates a place where youth and adults can come together in significant and visible ways, youth philanthropy is a powerful tool for changing adult attitudes and institutional policies that affect young people. Properly structured, it can also be a place to cultivate positive relationships and networks between disparate groups of young people. One of our most interesting findings was that youth philanthropy initiatives tend to have multiple purposes. Initiatives can be used as a way to teach the importance of giving and service; as a tool for increasing youth participation in institutional philanthropy and community life; as a way to develop young people's skills and leadership; and as a way for young people to take action on ideas and problems important to them and their communities. These multiple purposes might seem like evidence of a fractured movement, one with divergent goals and values. But, we don't believe this is the case. Many youth philanthropy initiatives are starting to see success in several of these aims simultaneously, and we believe that these purposes are in no way mutually exclusive. Our recommendations are designed to make a strong movement even stronger. We believe that even more young people can be involved in youth philanthropy, with greater funds in their control. We believe that the diversity of youth grantmakers can be broadened. And we believe that youth philanthropy can be an even more powerful tool for both improving the skills and forging the characters of young people and solving some of the deep-rooted problems of our communities. The successes of young people and adults in places like Battle Creek, Michigan; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Oakland, California are spurring more communities to involve young people in philanthropy. We hope this report further encourages communities and institutions to include and enhance youth voices in philanthropy. We look forward to observing the important transforma- tions this movement can make in the real lives of young people and adults. 0

40 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION 44 EKpTOSMORS GratKude

LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE OWES MUCH to the early adult heroes and heroines of this field: Robert S. Collier, president of the Council of Michigan Foundations; Matt Rosen, the director of youth philanthropy at the Youth Leadership Institute, who served as the tireless lead on this project; Lourdes MartinezoftheMarinCommunity Foundation Silicon Valley; Howard Slater, Foundation, and Stella Shao, formerly of that president of the North Valley Community organization, who joined with YLI to pioneer FoundationinChico,California;Dan this effort on the West Coast and believed in its Nugyen-Tan, spokesperson for the North power when few others dared; and Robert F. Valley Community Foundation; Amanda Sherman of the Surdna Foundation, whose Montgomery, supervising health education wisdom and light continually inform our field. specialist for the Butte County Department of In addition, we would like to thank the Behavioral Health; and Cole Church of Butte many philanthropy and youth development County Youth Nexus. professionals, along with young philanthro- We were privileged to have the opp,ortu- pists from across the country, who continue nity to meet with youth philanthropists at the / , to give their time, talents, resources and Ann Arbor Area Community Foundations / hearts to this significant effort. Youth Council and Battle Creek Community The following people graciously allowed Alliancein Michigan and, i+he San themselves to be interviewed for this report: Francisco Bay Area, at Making Change, Youth Robert Collier; Karin Tice of Formative Grants for Youth Action and the E\ast Palo Evaluation Research Associates in Ann Arbor Alto Money Crew. Thanks to these youth-and andanevaluatoroftheMichigan their allies for giving us the time/to learn Community Foundations' Youth Project in more about what they do. We also thank Grand Haven, Michigan; David Yates and Linda M. Frank, consultant to the Surdna Janet Wakefield of Community Partnerships Foundation, and the staffs at the Hawai'i with Youth; Ted Uno at Quilombo in Community Foundation, Ann Ar1bor Area Oakland, California; Barbara Oates at the Community Foundation and the Ewing Vancouver Foundation; Paula Allen of Youth Marion Kauffman Foundation, all of whom asResources of Central Indiana;Lisa gave us important information about their Patterson of the Center for Youth as programs in the summer of 1999. Resources; Martha Bloom of the Ann Arbor Thanks also to Sally Lew and Evan Area Community Foundation; Carolyn Ruger Carlson at the Los Angeles office of The at the Battle Creek Community Foundation; James Irvine Foundation, who so graciously Peggy Loper of Youth Grants for Youth Action co-hosted a meeting to consider a compre- at the Community Health Academy in hensive youth philanthropy initiative in the Oakland; Scott Massey of the Indiana Los Angeles area. We also want to recognize Humanities Council; Robert F. Sherman; Claire Peeps of the Durfee Foundation and Mary Lou Boughton, Youth United Way pro- Jan McCoy of the Bowen H. and Janice gram director at the Greater Kalamazoo Arthur McCoy Charitable Foundation, who United Way; Terry Lind, director of programs have provided leadership, resources and ded- and evaluation at theCommunity ication to the field of youth philanthropy.

CHANGING THE FAC4bGIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 41 We would like to thank all of the draft Last but not least, we have been privi- readers of the white paper: John Weiss, direc- leged to have the opportunity throughout the tor of the Adolescent Division of High/Scope years to work with young grantmakers in our Educational Research Foundation; Peggee two youth philanthropy initiatives. They have Davis, former administrator of the California taught us so much about youth as philan- Friday Night Live Partnership; Robert Collier; thropists. We are grateful to have had the and Robert F. Sherman. And we offer a heart- opportunity to work with them to build felt thank you to our wonderful colleagues at these programs. YLI, Kate Durham, Cory Pohley, and Carolyn On a special note, I want to express Caldwell, for their thoughtful edits. We are tremendous gratitude and appreciation to especially grateful to Monica Alatorre, our Matt Rosen, YLI's director of youth philan- director of communications we could not thropy, who led the research and writing of this have done this without her. document. As he worked tirelessly, he kept his A very special thank you to The James passion, vision, focus and love for the field of Irvine Foundationespecially to Diane youth philanthropy at the forefront of his Frankel, program director, and Sally Allen, efforts, and the field will be better because of program associatefor the opportunity to do his continuing and important contributions. 0 this important research. Through their dedi- cation to this report and to deepening the Maureen A. Sedonaen understanding of philanthropy, they continue Executive Director to demonstrate the foundation's commitment Youth Leadership Institute to young people and their communities.

Youth Philanthropy at the Youth Leadership Institute

The Youth Leadership Institute (YLI) has been involved with youth philanthropic efforts for more than a decade. Beginning in 1987, the institute first served as an advisor to the Marin Community Foundation and the Marin County Youth Commission as these two entities worked together to give young people authority over grants to their peers. A few years later, YLI assumed programmatic control over what was now its own program: The Marin Youth Grants Board. Expanding on this success, YLI and its partners brought youth philanthropy to San Francisco in the shape of Youth Initiated Projects.

The fresh approach shared by both Youth Initiated Projects and the Youth Grants Board takes youth out of an advisory capacity and gives them final decisionmaking authority. This approach is a powerful youth development tool because it expands the focus of youth philanthropy from the grantmakers themselves to the youth in the community. It moves youth grantmaking from a training ground for future philanthropists to a tool for current community building by youth. It also demonstrates how the existence of a large pool of funds which young people can con- sistently tap into can invigorate youth activism. Further, it shifts the focus of youth philanthropy from one in which grants are made only to youth organizations to one utilizing a youth initiated projects and community action approach. Finally, it demonstrates that local government can and should invest in the creative ideas of youth. The Youth Leadership Institute has played instrumental roles in establishing other California youth philanthropy programs and leads a current initiative to bring youth philanthropy to Los Angeles on a large scale. 4 6 42 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION www.yli.org Appendra Qo Yauth PhHanthroPTProqrams Note: Boxes are left blank if information about a particular program element is not specified.

Program Ann Arbor Youth Youth Grants for Youth Common Cents Ewing Marion Kauffman Youth as Resources of Youth Initiated Characteristics Council, Ann Arbor, Mil Action, Oakland, CA2 Philanthropy Round- Foundation Youth Advi- Central Indiana, Projects, tables, New York City3 sory Board, Kansas City' Indianapolis, IN° San Francisco, CA

Primary sponsor Ann Arbor Area Community Health Common Cents Ewing Marion Kauffman United Way of Central Youth Leadership organization(s) Community Foundation Academy New York Foundation Indiana Institute.

Organizational Type Community Foundation. Nonprofit Community Nonprofit Community Private Foundation United Way Nonprofit Community Organization Organization Organization

Additional Council of Michigan N/A Participating schools N/A Center for Youth as Linking San Francisco, organizational partners Foundations Resources Volunteer Center of San Francisco, and the San Francisco Youth Commission

Source of funds Endowment seeded by Oakland Fund for Children Penny HarvestrM Foundation Endowment United Way Donor Drive SF's Children's Fund, a the Kellogg Foundation and Youth, a voter- voter-approved fund for and other donors approved fund for chil- children and youth pro- dren and youth programs grams, and the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund

Program Purpose Youth participation in Youth participation in Promotion of values of Mechanism for youth Youth participation in Youth participation in institutional philanthropy, community change; service and giving; youth development; youth par- community change community change; promotion of values of mechanism for youth participation in communi-ticipation in community mechanism for youth service and giving development ty change change and institutional development philanthropy

Year program founded 1989 1998 1991 1996 1987 1997

Service area Ann Arbor area Fruitvale, San Antonio and New York City Greater Kansas City urban core Six counties, including San Francisco Central East Oakland areas Indianapolis and rural communities

Who gets the grants Organizations serving Youth-directed projects Youth-directed projects Youth-directed projects Youth-directed projects Youth-directed projects youth, youth-directed and other charitable and projects with signifi- projects, organizations cant youth input

Scope of projects Positive alternatives for Positive alternatives for Student-led projects and Projects that meet com- Projects that meet com- Positive alternatives; funded youth; projects that pro- youth; cultural projects; projects in the surround- munity needs, community munity needs; community projects that meet com- mote youth volunteerism; projects that address ing community service projects service projects; projects munity needs; community cultural projects; projects needs of children and which promote youth vol- organizing and advocacy that address needs of youth unteerism projects children and youth

Granting pool/year $80,000 About $100,000 More than $450,000 from $100,000 in 1999 $165,000 in 2000 $85,000 in 2000 more than 300 New York City Schools in 1999

Time commitment of 2 meetings per month One meeting per week . 2-3 meetings per month Varies 1-2 meetings per week grantmakers

Size and make-up of 24 young people Seven young people Varies 20 high school students 1/3 to 1/2 youth; adult 10 young people in middle grantmaking board members are often com- and high school munity leaders, i.e. judges and principals

Grant decisionmaking 2 application rounds per Applications accepted on Youth make final deci- Youth board makes rec- 2 application rounds per 2 application rounds per methods and roles year; youth board makes a rolling basis; youth sions ommendations to founda- year; each county board year plus a rolling cycle recommendations to make final decisions tion trustees has decisionmaking for proposals under $500; foundation trustees; authority youth make final decisions

continued on next page

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 43 Appendix A (continued)

Ann Arbor Youth Youth Grants for Common Cents Ewing Marion Kauffman Youth as Resources of Youth Initiated Projects Council Youth Action Philanthropy Foundation Youth Central Indiana Roundtables Advisory Board

Application process Groups submit written Groups submit written Groups are encouraged to Groups submit applica- Groups submit applica- Groups submit applica- applications; phone applications; one or more develop RFPs, youth grant- tions tions, make presentations tions, make presentations screening by youth sub- interviews between grant makers review proposals to decisionmaking board to decisionmaking board committee applicants and youth and visit applicants before grantmakers decisions

Types of training and Training in grant decision- Intensive ongoing train- Teachers provide this role Intensive ongoing train- Intensive ongoing train- support offered to making and leadership ing using a mentoring ing with focus on leader- ing with a focus on lead- youth in grantmaking skills with opportunities model ship development and ership development and roles for statewide training grantmaking grantmaking

Assistance and support Local youth center pro- A team of youth staff pro- Varies Workshops for youth Formal applicant work- Youth and adult staff pro- to potential applicants vides intensive assistance vides intensive ongoing applicants; phone assis- shops offered prior to vide intensive support to youth groups interest- support to encourage tance to applicants by application due dates in and training to potential ed in applying youth to apply and help adult staffers each county location; applicants; staff offers them develop a solid plan staff offers training to workshops and cus- adult allies of youth proj- tomized trainings for ect planners as well adult allies on request.

Assistance to project Local youth center pro- Youth members and Varies N/A Staff provide assistance if Youth and adult staff implementers vides intensive support to youth staff along with necessary coordinate assistance to youth groups that need adult staff work closely to grantees; youth members help with implementation help groups implement also provide some assis- projects tance

Project evaluation Grantees submit midterm Youth staff monitor and Encourages individual Youth grantmakers moni- measures and final reports; YAC support project imple- schools to seek written tor projects and perform members read reports mentation on a monthly reports, call or visit site visits, along with that staff view as prob- basis. groups adult staff; projects must lematic; occasional pre- also submit a final writ- sentations by grantees ten report

1 Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation program literature and interview with Martha Bloom, January 2001. 2 Community Health Academy program literature and interview with Peggy Loper. 3 Pretsfelder and Gross. 4 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation program literature and interview with staff. 5 United Way of Central Indiana program literature and interview with Paula Allen, March 2001.

44 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION 000mportant hilcUatTwes and Pmvarem

Michigan Community Foundations' Oakland Fund for Children and Youth Youth Project This fund, approved by Oakland voters, currently sets aside With more than 60 separate locations across the state, the 20 percent of its total $7 million to support youth-led projects Michigan Community Foundations' Youth Project is the most and organizations that support grantmaking boards. While prominent and influential youth philanthropy initiative in the each of the five currently funded youth-to-youth grantmaking United States. With technical support from the Council of programs has distinct characteristics, they are all distributing Michigan Foundations, and initial endowment funding from the significant amounts of money (an average of $60,000 per W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Charles Stewart Mott year) to youth groups across the city. The Oakland programs Foundation, community foundations across the state estab- have significant budgets for staff, and employ young people to lished Youth Advisory Committees (YACs) to make grant rec- do outreach and provide technical assistance to youth ommendations to the foundation's board of trustees. These grantseekers. YACs meet regularly to review proposals submitted by youth- serving organizations, and in some cases, youth-led communi -. ty groups. Youth make up the vast majority of the member- Youth Leadership Institute ship of the Youth Advisory Committees, although most of the In 1987, the Youth Leadership Institute (YLI) began playing a committees have some voting adult members. training and capacity-building role for the Marin County Youth Commission's Youth Grants Board. In 1991, after demonstrating its ability to be innovative in this field, YLI assumed program- Center for Youth as Resources matic control over the Youth Grants Board. Since this time, YLI Emerging out of a 1987 three-city pilot in Indiana, the Center has focused its philanthropic efforts on youth-to-youth grant- for Youth as Resources (YAR) now supports 73 community making. Expanding this effort, YLI founded Youth Initiated programs in 21 states, with concentrations in Indiana, Projects in San Francisco in 1997. Reaching out to potential Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The national organization works with grantseekers and offering technical assistance in project plan- local organizations and other stakeholders to establish pro- ning is a priority for YLI. The institute's models also seek to grams based on Youth as Resources principles, materials and change the face of philanthropy by attracting, training and sup- program design. While programs vary considerably in scope porting traditionally marginalized youth to serve as grantmakers. and scale, each has a grantmaking board of youth and adults as well as a commitment to supporting community projects planned and carried out by youth and their adult allies. Student Service and Philanthropy Project Established in 1991 by the Surdna Foundation, this project was one of the first youth philanthropy initiatives to locate its pro- Habits of the Heart grams within schools. The Surdna Foundation helped several Habits of the Heart is a joint effort of the Indiana Humanities New York City high schools establish classroom-based founda- Council, Community Partnerships with Youth, the Center on tions that supported youth-initiated projects within the Philanthropy at Indiana University and the Search Institute. schools. While the initiative lasted only three years, a compre- This program aims to cultivate philanthropic habits and quali- hensive curriculum emerged out of this project that served as ties among youth through organizations that serve youth and the foundation for the Learning to Give program, a national faith-based groups. Beginning in 1997 as a three-year pilot project to integrate practices and principles of philanthropy project, Habits of the Heart now focuses on developing curricu- into school curricula. la and program materials.

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 45 AppenetK Sunny Medplench by Mee

California Kentucky Oregon Alameda County Volunteer Center, Oakland The Community Foundation of Louisville, GE-Enron Foundation, Portland Community Foundation Silicon Valley, San Jose Louisville The Harold and Arlene Schnitzer Foundation, Community Health Academy (Youth Grants for The Creation Relation, Louisville Portland Youth Action), Oakland Global Education Partnership, Oakland Maine Pennsylvania People United for a Better Oakland, Oakland Quilombo, Oakland Maine Community Foundation, Portland Berks County Community Foundation, Reading San Francisco Foundation, San Francisco Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, Maryland Rhode Island Soquel National 4-H Council, Chevy Chase The Rhode Island Foundation, Providence Temple Isaiah, Lafayette Youth as Resources, Baltimore Women's Foundation, San Francisco South Carolina Massachusetts Colorado Youth Service Charleston, Charleston Boston Private Industry Council, Boston City of Longmont Youth Services, Longmont Boston Women's Fund, Boston El Pomar Foundation, Colorado Springs South Dakota Sioux Falls Area Community Foundation, Michigan Connecticut Sioux Falls Albion Community Foundation, Albion Cheshire Youth Services, Cheshire Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, Ann Communities in Action, Stamford Texas Arbor Family & Children's Agency (FCA), Norwalk Baraga County Community Foundation, L'Anse Coalition of Community Foundations for Youth, Shepaug Valley Middle School, Washington Community Foundation for Southeastern Austin Woodbury Middle School Youth Leadership Michigan, Detroit Community Foundation of the Texas Hill Country, Program, Woodbury Community Foundation of Greater Flint, Lapeer Kerrville Grand Haven Area Community Foundation, Grand Moody Memorial First United Methodist Church Delaware Haven Permanent Endowment Fund, Galveston Delaware Community Foundation, Wilmington Grand Traverse Regional Community Foundation, Traverse City Virginia Greenville Area Foundation, Greenville Coalition for Youth, Hampton Florida Ionia County Intermediate School District, Ionia Interdenominational Organization for Unity in Capital City Bank Group Foundation, Tallahassee Kalamazoo Community Foundation, Kalamazoo Christ (IOU Christ), Virginia Beach Edyth Bush Charitable Foundation, Winter Park LaSalle High School, St. Ignace Youth Venture, Arlington Pinellas County Cooperative Extension Service, M & M Area Community Foundation, Menominee Largo Marquette Community Foundation, Marquette Marshall Community Foundation, Marshall Washington Hawaii Michigan Women's Foundation, Grand Rapids Bellevue Youth Link, Bellevue Southfield Community Foundation, Southfield Seattle Youth Involvement Network, Seattle Hawaii Community Foundation, Honolulu The Grand Rapids Foundation, Grand Rapids The Jackson Community Foundation, Jackson Wyoming Illinois Whitewater Youth Advisory Council, East Tawas Wyoming Community Foundation, Casper After School Action Programs, Chicago New York The District of Columbia Indiana Action for a Better Community, Inc., Rochester Center for Social and Emotional Learning, Erie 2 Partnership for National ServicePoints of Light Community Partnership with Youth Inc., Fort BOCES, Fredonia Foundation, Washington D.C. Wayne Central New York Community Foundation, Youth Service America, Washington D.C. Dekko Foundation Youth Corps, Kendallville Syracuse Legacy Fund Community Foundation, Carmel Common Cents New York, New York Monroe County Public Library, Bloomington Ontario, Canada Community Foundation of the Elmira-Corning Putnam Co. Youth as Resources, c/o GMUnited Area, Elmira Ontario Trillium Foundation, Toronto Methodist Church, Greencastle Youth Participation Project of Rochester, Monroe United Way of Central Indiana, Community County Youth Bureau, Rochester Service Council, Indianapolis Youth Force, Bronx Wells County Youth as Resources, Bluffton Youth as Resources of Fort Wayne/Allen County, North Carolina Fort Wayne Youth as Resources/Marshall High School, Marshall Iowa Cumberland Community Foundation, Fayetteville Community Foundation of Waterloo and Polk Community Foundation, Tryon Northeastern Iowa, Waterloo Ohio Kansas Students United Make Opportunities (SUMO), Women's Foundation of Greater Kansas City, Sylvania Overland Park Toledo Community FoundationYIPEE, Toledo Youth as Resources of Springfield and Clark County, Springfield

46 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION 50 AppendraDo°MogeTences

Bellah, Robert Neelly, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, National Crime Prevention Council. Changing Perspectives: Youth as and Steven M. Tipton. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Resources. Washington, D.C.: National Crime Prevention Council, 1990. Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Pretsfelder, Gary, and Teddy Gross. The 2001 Roundtable Handbook. New York: Common Cents New York, 2001. Bloch, Sylvie. The Role of Youth Grant-making in Foundation Philanthropy. Unpublished paper, 1998. Roach, Carla, Lisa Y. Sullivan and Wendy Wheeler. Youth Leadership for Development: Civic Activism as a Component of Youth Development Chen, Lindsay, David Sadler and Barbara Oates. Policy and Procedures Programming. Chevy Chase, MD: National 4-H Council's Innovation Manual: Vancouver Foundation's Youth Philanthropy Council, Center for Community and Youth Development, 1999. undated. Roehlkepartain, E.C., E. D. Naftali, and L. Musegades. Growing Up Generous: Cooper, Anne B, and Janet Wakefield. Youth as Philanthropists: Engaging Youth in Giving and Serving. Bethesda, MD: Alban Institute, Developing Habits of Giving and Serving. Fort Wayne, Indiana: 2000. Community Partnerships with Youth, 2000. Tice, Karin. Empowering Youth: Lessons learned from the Michigan Cretsinger, Molly. Youth Philanthropy: A Framework of Best Practice. Community Foundations' Youth Project 1991-1997. Grand Haven, MI: Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation, undated document Council of Michigan Foundations, 1998. available at http: / /www.wkkf.org/ Documents /Philvol /youth_pv.asp. Vancouver Foundation. Youth in Philanthropy Program Evaluation. Hamilton, Matthew and Afshan Hussain. America's Teenage Volunteers. Vancouver Foundation, 2000. The Independent Sector, Washington, D.C., undated document available at http://www.indepsec.org. Youth as Resources of Central Indiana website located at http://www.uwci.org/yar/yaryhc.html. Jewish Fund for Justice. Youth Organizing: Nurturing the Next Generation of Activists. Undated document available at Zeldin, Shepherd, Annette Kusgen, McDaniel, Dimitri Topitzes, and Matt http://www.jfjustice.org/yorpaper.htm. Calvert. Youth in Decision-Making: A Study of the Impacts of Youth on Adults and Organizations. Chevy Chase, MD: National 4-H Council, 2000.

Center for Youth as Resources www.yar.org Michigan Community Foundations' Youth Project www.mcfyp.org 1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 13th Floor Council of Michigan Foundations Washington, D.C. 20036 One South Harbor Avenue, Suite 3 (202) 261-4131 P. 0. Box 599 Grand Haven, MI 49417 The Center for Youth as Resources helps establish Youth as (616) 842-7080 Resources (YAR) programs designed to provide small grants to young people to plan and carry out service projects in their Michigan Community Foundations' Youth Project is a statewide pro- communities. Through instructional materials, technical assis- gram to build community foundation capacity, establish youth as tance, and training, conducted by experienced youth and philanthropists, and build permanent and growing funds within each adults, the center helps local YARs start, develop and expand. community to meet local youth needs. The Council of Michigan Foundations oversees and staffs this project.

Community Partnerships with Youth, Inc. www.cpyinc.org 2000 North Wells Street Youth Leadership Institute www.yli.org Fort Wayne, IN 46808 870 Market Street, Room 708 (212) 422-6493 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 397-2256 Community Partnerships with Youth, Inc. is a national training and resource development organization dedicated to promot- The Youth Leadership Institute is a community-based organization ing active citizenship through youth and adult partnerships. that joins with young people to build communities that respect, They offer tools and curricula to train youth in such areas as honor and support youth. YLI is available to assist nonprofit organi- youth as philanthropists and youth as community trustees. zations, foundations and public institutions establish youth philanthropy programs. They also can help develop appropriate and rele- vant curricula to accompany programs.

51 CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 47 Foondes

1 The YLI defines "youth philanthropy" as pro- (Washington, D.C.: National Crime 44 Interview with Ewing Marion Kauffman grams in which youth develop knowledge of Prevention Council, 1990), p. 8. Foundation staff, July 1999. and participate in the formal practice of phi- 21 Ibid., p. 38. 45 Interview with Peggy Loper. lanthropy, specifically grantmaking. Projects that promote youth involvement in commu- 22 Interview with Peggy Loper, youth develop- 46 Tice, p. 31. nity services but do not include formal element director for Youth Grants for Youth 47 Vancouver Foundation, Youth in Philanthropy ments of philanthropy such as grantmaking Action at the Community Health Academy in Program Evaluation, 2000, p. 6. are not covered in the report. Oakland, February 2001. 48 Meeting with youth grantmakers at Youth 2 The bulk of the research findings contained in 23 E. C. Roehlkepartain, E. D., Naftali and L. Grants for Youth Action, Community Health this paper is based on data from the years Musegades, Growing Up Generous: Engaging Academy, February 2001. 2000 and 2001. Youth in Giving and Serving (Bethesda, MD: Alban Institute, 2000). 49 Interview with East Palo Alto Money Crew, 3 Interview with Janet Wakefield, co-director of Community Foundation Silicon Valley, Community Partnerships with Youth, 24 Robert Neelly Bellah, et al., Habits of the February 2001. February, 2001. Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Berkeley, CA: University of 50 Interview with youth from Battle Creek Youth 4 Molly Cretsinger, Youth Philanthropy: A California Press, 1985). Alliance. Framework of Best Practice (Battle Creek, 51 Shepherd Zeldin, et al., Youth in Decision- MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation), undated docu- 25 Anne B. Cooper and Janet Wakefield, Youth ment from http://www.wkktorg/docu- as Philanthropists: Developing Habits of Making: A Study on the Impacts of Youth on Adults and Organizations. (Chevy Chase, ments/philvol/youth_pv.asp. Giving and Serving (Fort Wayne, IN: Community Partnerships with Youth, 2000.) MD: National 4-H Council, 2000), p. 8. 5 Sylvie Bloch, The Role of Youth Grantmaking in 52 Tice, pp. 27-30. Foundation Philanthropy (Unpublished paper, 26 Interview with Indiana Humanities Council 1998). president and CEO Scott Massey, February 53 Correspondence with Robert Collier, presi- 2001. 6 Interview with Linda M. Frank, consultant to dent, Council of Michigan Foundations, the Surdna Foundation, July 1999. 27 Indiana Humanities Council, undated project March 2001. materials. 7 Interview with Barbara Oates, program direc- 54 Interviews with Martha Bloom, January and tor for the Vancouver Foundation, January 28 Interview with Robert E Sherman, program August 2001. 2001. officer for Effective Citizenry, Surdna 55 Interview with Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, February 2001. 8 Interview with Linda M. Frank. Foundation staff. 29 Interview with Barbara Oates. 9 Our concerns about the demographics of 56 Interview with Robert Collier. youth philanthropists are mitigated by the 30 Interview with Paula Allen, director of Youth 57 National Crime Prevention Council, pp. 52-53. as Resources of Central Indiana, a program effects of survey self selection. Self selec- 58 National Crime Prevention Council, pp. 51-52; of United Way of Central Indiana, August, tion, the process by which some people may 62-63; and 74-75. be more inclined to answer a survey than 2001. 59 Ibid., pp. 34-35. others, may have influenced our results. Few 31 Interview with youth from Battle Creek Youth programs sent back surveys where all youth Alliance, Battle Creek Community 60 Interview with Martha Bloom, August 2001. members responded. Foundation, January 2001, and Ann Arbor 61 Initiatives like Boston's Youth on Board, and 10 Interview with Lisa Patterson, director of Area Community Foundation Youth Council the Youth Leadership Institute's Young Midwest Program Development Office, members, January 2001. Active Citizens have additional materials Center for Youth as Resources, February 32 Interview with Marvin King, youth project and resources for promoting youth partici- 2000. coordinator, Council of Michigan pation on nonprofit boards. 11 Youth as Resources of Central Indiana website, Foundations, March, 2001. 62 Interview with Peggy Loper. http://www.uwci.org/yarlyaryhc.html. 33 Interview with Hawai'i Community Foundation 63 Jewish Fund for Justice, Youth Organizing: 12 Matthew Hamilton and Afshan Hussain, staff, summer 1999. Nurturing the Next Generation of Activists. America's Teenage Volunteers (Washington, 34 Interview with Ouilombo's Making Change Undated document from D.C., Independent Sector), from website Youth Grants Board Members, Oakland, http://www.jfjustice.org/yorpaper.htm. www.indepsec.org. California, February 2001. 64 Carla Roach, Lisa Y. Sullivan and Wendy 13 Ibid. 35 Interview with Linda M. Frank. Wheeler, Youth Leadership for Development: Civic Activism as a Component of Youth 14 Karin Tice, Empowering Youth: Lessons 36 This calculation is based on data from Development Programming (Chevy Chase, Learned from the Michigan Community Foundation Giving Trends (New York, N.Y.: MD: National 4-H Council's Innovation Foundations' Youth Project 1991-1997 (Grand The Foundation Center, 2001), the Michigan Center for Community and Youth Haven, MI: Council of Michigan Foundations, Database, and conversations with experts. 1998), p. 2. Development, 1999), p. 10. 37 These school-based grantmaking initiatives, 65 Ibid., p. 10. 15 Because respondents often selected more Common Cents New York, El Pomar than one purpose as their program's top pri- Foundation's Youth in Community Service in 66 Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation pro- ority, the total results are greater than 100 Colorado, and PGE-Enron Foundation's gram literature and interview with Martha percent. Community 101 in Oregon, together granted Bloom, January 2001. 16 Interview with Robert Collier, president, over $1.5 million. Several dozen individual 67 Community Health Academy program litera- Council of Michigan Foundations, January school-based youth boards were involved in ture and interview with Peggy Loper. the disbursement of these funds. 2001. 68 Pretsfelder and Gross. 38 Tice, p. 17. 17 Interview with Martha Bloom, program officer, 69 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation program Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, 39 Interview with Havre! Community Foundation literature and interview with staff. January 2001. staff, July 1999. 70 United Way of Central Indiana program litera- 18 Interview with Ann Arbor Area Community 40 Interview with Paula Allen, March, 2001. ture and interview with Paula Allen, March Foundation's Youth Council members, 2001. January 2001. 41 Interview with Martha Bloom, August 2001. 42 Tice, p. 17. 19 Interview with Lisa Patterson. 43 Gary Pretsfelder and Teddy Gross, The 2001 20 National Crime Prevention Council, Changing Roundtable Handbook (New York: Common Perspectives: Youth as Resources Cents New York, 2001), pp. 10-14. 5r)

CHANGING THE FACE OF GIVING: AN ASSESSMENT OF YOUTH PHILANTHROPY 48 THE JAMES IRVINE FOUNDATION

The James Irvine Foundation is an independent grantmaking foundation dedicated to enhancing the social, economic, and physical quality of life throughout California, and to enriching the state's intellectual and cultural environment. The Foundation was established in 1937 by James Irvine,the California pioneer whose 110,000-acre ranch in Southern California was among the largest privately owned land holdings in the state. With assets of $1.5 billion, the Foundation makes grants of approximately $71 million annually for the people of California. For moreinfor- mation on the Foundation, please visit www.irvine.org.

The James Irvine Foundation, One Market, Steuart Tower, Suite 2500, San Francisco, CA94105 Telephone: 415-777-2244www.irvine.org C6ee-374L

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) 1 D) _J National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) REPRODUCTION RELEASE (Specific Document) I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

Title: Changing the Face of Giving: An Assessment of Youth Philanthropy

Author(s): Matt Rosen, The YOuth Developement Tnitintivp Corporate Source: Publication Date:

The James Irvine Foundation Fall 2001

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproducedpaper copy, and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and signat the bottom of the page. The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 1 documents affixed to all Level 2A documents affixed to all Level 2B documents PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN BEEN GRANTED BY FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY, MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY \e \e

S?' Se'``\`?

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 2A 23

Level 1 Level 2A Level 2B

Check here for Level 1 release, permitting Check here for Level 2A release, permitting Check here for Level 2B release, permitting reproduction and dissemination in microfiche or other reproduction and dissemination in microfiche and in reproduction and dissemination in microfiche only - ERIC archival media (e.g., electronic) and paper electronic media for ERIC archival collection copy. subscribers only

Documents will be processed as Indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

Sign Signature Printed Name/Positioraitle: here,-ik ,et-f;ANc=r1 VV OrganizationfAddres Tlygtski, please Ste- F`46 //i(1-6/ O'f" E-Mail Address: Date: k- vA/1.e.," enc.-

(over) III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source,please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:

Acquisitions Coordinator ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education Center on Education and Training for Employment 1900 Kenny Road However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if makieundimoldont64.60 to ERIC, return this form (and the document being contributed) to:

ERIC Processing and Reference Facility 4483-A Forbes Boulevard Lanham, Maryland 20706

Telephone: 301-552-4200 Toll Free: 800-799-3742 FAX: 301-552-4700 e-mail: [email protected] VVVVW: http://ericfacility.org EFF-088 (Rev. 2/2000)