Annual Report 1975
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
> CHARLES STEWART MOTT FOUNDATION ANNUAL' REPORT > FOR I 1975 ^ CHARLES STEWART MOTT FOUNDATION 510 MOTT FOUNDATION BLDG., FLINT, MICHIGAN 48502 ANNUALA REPORT >W£ FOR m W^^z* 1975 \f* ^^B I is * * P :^t Pv*v! £ ftfe! ,^WB| y-" v^«-:j*''^^L J ^^<^lt " - " ,, If — ' 3flML^^| K ^*»1H1 * '^^i .* v & ™ "• " • ^^^^riHW'^l H ^ ^^^JH ^Dv^ I IT f^ ^^•P^*-- • ^K^^L^J J k^V' ^l^^p " ^^k ^^^f^H^p ^^V^^^^^V ^^•^^••.^^^^•••.Jl ltd"3 "v^*^ ^^ CONTENTS ABOUT THE MOTT FOUNDATION Ill ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS AND STAFF TV HIGHLIGHTS: 1975 1 THE YEAR IN REVIEW CENTRAL ISSUES 2 FOUNDATION AS ORGANIZATION 4 NEW PHILOSOPHY 6 GRANT MILESTONES 8 STATEMENT OF GRANTS 14 FINANCIAL REVIEW 24 LETTER 25 BALANCE SHEET 26 INCOME STATEMENT 27 FUND STATEMENT 27 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 28 ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF SECURITIES 29 MANAGEMENT EXPENSES 32 HOW TO APPLY FOR A GRANT . 33 ABOUT THE MOTT FOUNDATION Community self-improvement -- from within neighborhoods to within city hall — using the processes of education, social wel- fare, environmental development — is what the Mott Foundation works at. Since its found- ing in 1926 as a private non-operating founda- tion, it has funded programs aimed at improv- ing the quality of life through individuals and their communities. Charles Stewart Mott, a pioneer of the au- tomobile industry, established the Foundation out of a sense of responsibility toward his home community, Flint, Michigan — where he helped develop the community education con- cept, which ties together all of the learning and seeks to involve everyone in the determi- nation of their own lives and of the life o! the community. The Foundation continues to work In Flint, yet its activities encompass the discovery- and demonstration of principles undergirding community functioning everywhere. Ill BOARD OF TRUSTEES JOSEPH A. ANDERSON C. S. HARDING MOTT, II WILLIAM S. BALLENGER, JR. RUTH R. MOTT* CHARLES B. CUMINGS HAROLD P. RODES MARYANNE MOTT MEYNET WILLIAM S. WHITE C. S. HABDING MOTT GEORGE L. WHYEL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE JOSEPH A. ANDERSON HAROLD P. RODES C, S. HARDING MOTT WILLIAM S. WHITE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE WILLIAM S. BALLENGER, JR. WILLIAM S. WHITE C. S. HABDING MOTT GEORGE L. WHYEL SPECIAL AUDIT COMMITTEE WILLIAM S. BALLENGEB, JR. C. S. HARDING MOTT, II CHARLES B. CUMINGS OFFICERS AND STAFF C. S, HARDING MOTT WILLIAM S. WHITE Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer President and Chief Administrative Officer PROGRAMS HOMER E. DOWDY NORWARD ROUSSELL Vice-President, Program Administration Program Officer ROBERT D. KELLY MARILYN H. STEELE Program Officer Program Officer DOUGLAS M. PROCUNIER ODELL BROADWAY Program Officer Consultant INVESTMENTS GEORGE R. BERKAW, JR. ROBERT E. SWANEY, JR. Vice-President, Investments Investment Manager CONTROLLERSHIP LAWRENCE R. DOYLE FRANK R. GILSDORF Secretary, Assistant Treasurer, Controller Projects Controller and Assistant Treasurer and Compliance Officer INFORMATION WILLIAM F. GRIMSHAW STEPHEN F. SILHA Director Publications Editor IV 'Trustee Emeritus HIGHLIGHTS: 1975 In 1975, the Mott Foundation .. • initiated such milestone programs as ... ... a neighborhood problem-solving process, • put into operation a new Foundation phi- stressing citizen involvement through losophy, focusing on community, designed to community councils in dealing with eco- drive the Foundation's management system nomic, environmental, social and other and to initiate more effective planning for difficulties. future program opportunities. • made 124 grants in response to some 812 ... a multi-part urban Flint industrial, econom- grant requests. Amount of 1975's grants totaled ic and centra] city development program, $15,791,617, against $11,915,862 in 1974. emphasizing partnership of public and • realized income of $18,178,001, compared private sectors. with $20,195,197 for 1974. (A portion of 1975 . broadening of community education de- and 1974 excess income was restored to the velopment across the U.S. through grant Foundation's principal fund to offset in part activities involving 77 universities and the amounts distributed in excess of income public and private organizations that in the years 1971 and 1972.) trained leaders, provided information and • saw Foundation fund increased to assistance to communities, and conducted $364,149,840 from $246,458,119, due mainly to research in community education. a $114,821,582 unrealized gain in values of . development of community education's marketable securities. first "how-to" multi-media training pro- • elevated three top Foundation officials; gram tor use by virtually everyone in state C. S. Harding Mott to chairman and chief and federal agencies, businesses, com- executive officer; William S. White to presi- munities large and small, universities, dent and chief administrative officer; and agencies and school districts. Lawrence R. Doyle to secretary. r THE YEAR IN REVIEW CENTRAL ISSUES "In our American society that has more lei- sure time than probably any other civilization in the history of the world, people often no longer find time to talk to one another. "Neighbor* many times don't even say hello. They often appear afraid to show friendship, perhaps not wanting to chance a rebuff. "Bob Rieclerich knows this to be true. So does- Mm. Clarine Patterson. "Both are presidents of block clubs in Flint." THE FLINT JOURNAL Flint, Michigan Thursday, May 22, 1975 By Michael J. Rilia Journal Writer And both, the story goes on to describe, are trying to save their neighborhood communities by getting their neighbors together to talk through neighborhood problems and taking ac- tion together toward their solutions. The article ends: "Rieclerich concludes that City Hall can't .save Flint — it has to be done at the neighborhood level." You can find much the same scenario unfold- ing nearly everywhere in the U.S. A trend from apathy to action seems at hand as more and more people organize to re-establish a sense of community. They are impatient with problems of declining quality of services and rising costs, with dehumanization of bothourenvironments and our lives, with the seeming inability of each individual to make a difference, to have control over his or her destiny. The rebirth of our communities has barely begun. Nearly two decades ago citizens in places like Detroit, St. Louis, and Houston were about the business of rebuilding their cities with mixed success. Today, with bicen- tennial fervor, some people are picking up where activists of the '60's left off, trying to revitalize their communities and institutions to make them more responsive to the needs of those they are intended to serve. Others are moving away from communities, dropping out. Perhaps today's deepest chal- lenge is a spiritual one — endingthe frustration of countless individuals who feel deprived of meaningful involvement in decisions that af- fect them and their neighbors. Nearly everyone from Anchorage to Key West has felt the impact of these frustrations — in the products and services obtained in shopping centers, in dealings of multi-national corporations, small businesses, in schools and universities, in churches, in daily life. Clearly there is irony in the fact that this society — engaged for 200 years in one of civilization's greatest political experiments in democracy — seems now hard pressed to apply its principles effectively in the daily community life. We atthe Mott Foundation, like many others, put improvement of the quality of life in our communities as our first priority. Now 49 years at work helping in our own community, and others', we are aware that problems are rife and solutions few. This isn't to say the solutions aren't coming. They are. Most of us in the foun- dation field, in government, in public and pri- vate agencies believe that ways can and xvill be found to engender true renaissance of commu- nity, ways that are intrinsically democratic. Yet even as we believe this we are aware of trends that appear counter-productive to our best efforts. One is the persistence of political forces that would do away with private founda- tions. Another is the emerging juggernaut of national planning. Both take aim at what is most essential to the survival of democracy: decision-making at the grass-roots, local level. Our question then becomes: "What is happen- ing to the pluralistic approach to freedom of choice, in search for truth and equality in the fulfillment of human needs?" We expect all our work to demonstrate this value and therefore preserve it. • THE YEAR IN REVIEW THE FOUNDATION AS AN ORGANIZATION trustees to three-year terms: they are William S. As with most foundations, ovir basic structure Ballenger, Jr., Charles B. Cumings, and George — Trustees, officers and staff— is a given. But L. Whyel, all of Flint. of course, the composition of this working team Even though the Foundation's organizational changes. structure has a "vertical" arrangement of staff, During 1975 the Board of Trustees named C. management and trustee groups, during 1975 S. Harding Mott chairman arid chief executive special effort was made to achieve "a commu- officer of the Foundation; he continues as trea- nity of persons" by interrelating operations, surer. The Board elected William S. White program, and financial functioning. This gave president and chief administrative officer. Mr. more meaning and direction to daily tasks. The Mott, who has been an active leader in the consequence on the "bottom line": more Foundation's affairs since 1936, served as pres- dynamic sharing of ideas, plans' and en- ident of the Foundation since 1965. Mr. White thusiasm, and dimunition of territorial ism - served as vice president and secretary since qualities that seem to be at the very core of 1971. Since he first became associated with the community. Foundation as an operations management as- Foundation staff members, as may be ex- sistant in 1969, Mr, White has been engaged pected, exercise in their roles a particular in structuring an integrated management, fi- interest, understanding and competence in nancial and programming system.