Continuing Education of a Foundation Board Member Smazzer

The Bancroft Library University of California/~erkele~ Regional Oral History Office

BAY AREA FOUNDATION HISTORY

Volume IV

Frank Sloss Tradition and Change: Continuing Education of a Foundation Board Member

Edmond S. Gillette, Jr. SmaZZer Foundation Trusteeship: ObZigations to Friendship and the Community

Charles Glock A Socio Zogist Coments on Getting, Using, and Making Grants

Jean Gerlinger Kuhn Balance and Order in a Community Trust

William Matson Roth The Traditiun of VoZuntary SoZutions to Pub Zic Prob Zems

Richard L. Foster Avoiding InstitutionaZ Entropy: A SchooZ Superintendent 's View

Orville Luster Growth of a Grassroots Youth Agency in the 1960s

Obie Benz and Peter Stern A New Generation of Grant-making Ideas

Interviews Conducted by Gabrielle Morris

Copy No. @ 1976 by The Regents of the University of California This manuscript is made available for research purposes. No pet of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library of the University of California at Berkeley.

Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 486 Library, and should include identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated use of the passages, and identification of the user. TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Bay Area Foundation History Series, Volume IV

PREFACE

Frank Sloss, Tradition and Change: Continuing Education of a Foundat ion Board Member

Edmond S. Gillette, Jr., Smaller Foundation Trusteeship: Obligations to Friendship and the Community

Charles Glock, A Sociologist Comments on Getting, Using, and Making Grants

Jean Gerlinger Kuhn, Balance and Order in a Community Trust

William Matson Roth, The Tradition of Voluntary Solutions to Public Problems

Richard L. Foster, Avoiding Institutional Entropy: A School Superintendent's View

Orville Luster, Growth of a Grassroots Youth Agency in the 1960s

Obie Benz and Peter Stern, A New Generation of Grant-making Ideas

INDEX Bay Area Foundation History Series June, 1976

Volume I Introduction to series John Rickard May, Building a Community Foundation

Volume I1 Ruth Chance, At the Heart of Grants for Youth

Volume I11 Daniel E. Koshland, Responding to the Flow of New Ideas in the Conomcnity Philip S,. Ehrlich, Sr., An Attorney's Twenty-five Yems of Philanthropic Service Josephine Whitney Duveneck, Working for a Real Democracy with ChiZdren and other Minority Groups Marjorie Doran Elkus , Recollections of Srm Francisco Private Agencies and Foundations, 2935-2950 Dorothy W. Erskine, Environmental Quality and Planning: Continuity of Volunteer Leadership Florence Richardson Wyckoff, A Volunteer Career, from the Arts and Education to Public Health Issues Emmett Gamaliel Solomon, A Corporate Citizen's Concern for the Effective- ness of a Community Foundation Bill Somerville, A Foundation Executive in Training, 2962-2974

Volume IV Frank Sloss , Tradition and Change: Continuing Education of a Foundation Board Member Edmond S. Gillette, Jr., Smaller ~oundationTrusteeship: Obligations to Friendship and the Cmnity Charles Glock, A Sociologist Comments on Getting, Using, and Making Grants Jean Gerlinger Kuhn, Balance and Order in a Comnity Trust William Matson Roth, The Tradition of Voluntary Solutions to Public Problems Richard Foster , Avoiding Institutional Entropy; A School Superintendent 's View Orville Luster, Growth of a Grassroots Youth Agency in the 2960s Obie Benz and Peter Stern, A New Generation of Grant-making Ideas

Volume V Milton Salkind, New Vitality in the San Francisco Conservatory of &sic E. P. (~ed)Stephenson, Transition: White Man in a Black Tam, 2950-2967 Caroline Moore Charles, Development and Dynamics of Volunteer Organizations Arabella Martinez, The Spanish-speaking Unity Council, Inc., and Bag Area Foundations Ira DeVoyd Hall, Jr., Conmunity Resources: Turning Idens int.9 Action .Sam Yuen , Philosopher and Community Agency Administrator PREFACE

This five-volume Bay Area Foundation History Series, a special project of the Regional Oral History Office, was first discussed in late 1973. Ruth Chance and John May were then preparing to retire as executive directors, respectively, of the Rosenberg Foundation and the San Francisco Foundation, and a group of their colleagues wished to express their appreciation for the guidance and inspiration these two have provided in developing the art of philanthropic grant -making.

In addition to documenting the part Ruth Chance and John May have had in encouraging activities for the betterment of life in the Bay Area and California, it was decided to record an account of significant trends and events in the foundation community of the Bay Area. The resultant project includes twenty- four interviews of varying length with board members, staff, and grantees of a variety of Bay Area foundations representing both traditional and contemporary views of philanthropy. The series as a whole presents a picture of close to half a century of organized philanthropy in the Bay Area, including the processes of foundations and the development of community attitudes and organizations which mirror the evolution of issues of concern not only to foundations but to society in the West and nationally.

The Office wishes to express its sincere thanks to the Zellerbach Family Fund, van Loben Sels Foundation, San Francisco Foundation, and Rosenberg Foundation, whose joint grants made this project possible. We also deeply appreciate the encouragement, interest, and research assistance of the staffs of these foundations and other interested observers throughout the course of this project. Special thanks are due to the participants in the interviews for their willingness to discuss their experience with foundations and for their patience in reviewing their transcripts. It is hoped that readers now and in the future will find these manuscripts as informative and thought-provoking as has the staff who prepared them.

The interviews stimulated the deposit, by interviewees and others, of a number of letters, speeches, pamphlets, grant proposals, and other materials related to philanthropy dating back to 1926. This Bay Area Foundation History collection is being added to The Bancroft Library's extensive holdings in twentieth century Californiana.

The Regional Oral History Office was established in 1954 to tape record autobiographical interviews with persons prominent in the history of California and the West. The Office is under the administrative supervision of James D. Hart, Director of The Bancroft Library.

26 May 1976 Gabrielle Morris, Interviewer-Editor Regional Oral History Office Bay Area Foundation History Series Room 486 The Bancroft Library University of California Willa K. Baum Berkeley, California Department Head Regional Oral History Office SERIES INTRODUCTION

A foundation generally is the bricks and mortar and such which hold up a building; it supplies the basis for the equilibrium and soundness of the whole structure. Through the curious evolution of language, a foundation is also a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization that has an endowment or seeks funds for the support of activities generally agreed to be for the common good. In this sense, foundations have become an important, and sometimes controversial, financial underpinning for the philanthropic instincts of American society. Little is known about the multitude of foundations, except for the giant nationals. Examination of the workings of some smaller foundations should give some insight into the significance of philanthropy in American life.

Philanthropy has traditionally been an individual act to help humanity, usually in the form of gifts of money, and individual giving continues to be the, major form of philanthropy. Foundations have developed, increasing rapidly in size and number since the 1950~~as the organized form of philanthropy, providing financial support to.a kaleidoscopic array of health, welfare, youth, cultural, and public affairs activities. These activities comprise the independent sector of society, as distinguished from the public governmental and private economic sectors. It could be said that the interaction between these three sectors determines the direction and nature of our society as a whole.

Like the community chest and its successors, the majority of foundations give assistance to the budgets and building funds of organizations in this independent sector, although community chests tend to concentrate on current needs and foundations are "for the conservation and creative use of funds for future needs." The definitions of 'creative use' have changed considerably as the future has become the present, and the terms used to describe foundation work are often confusing to those in other fields. Differences of opinion over intent as well as language have produced recurrent rumblings that some foundations are either captives of the establishment or are speeding the country down the road to socialism. There are complaints that some are inaccessible to many kinds of people and that their tax exemptions are unjustified, complaints with which many foundation people agree.

The most interesting foundations, however, are those that make grants for specific projects in response to new ideas in the community, rather than providing general support for existing programs. These foundations seem similar to the research and development departments of industry that are essential for the techno- logical progress of many corporations. They reflect the idea expressed in the 1940s~ that foundations should have both prestige and personality which they can "exert to influence the balanced development of the community." A study of the operation of some of the grant-making foundations in the San Francisco Bay Area by The Bancroft Library's Regional Oral History Office indicates that they are a microcosm of the changing patterns of needs and attitudes in the community they serve and provide a means for evaluating, monitoring, and validating those concerns.

Historical Background

San Francisco has long been noted for a fierce community pride and a small cohesive group of citizens who have taken the lead in seeing to it that the city had museums, parks, and care for the unfortunate. Through personal philanthropy, families like the Crockers, thedeyoungs, the Fleishhackers,and others saw to it that there was a Telegraph Hill settlement house, a Ladies Protective and Relief Society, a Public Dance Hall Committee, and encouraged their offspring to continue to help with these works. As early as the 1880~,the Mary A.Crocker Trust was established to provide for the continuing support of these needs.

The earliest document available regarding a continuing source of funds to respond to new needs presented by the community rather than the existing interests of the donors is a small clipping from a Boston newspaper of July, 1926, repeated in British, French, and German papers, reporting "A Combine of Twelve Kindly Millionaires," each proposing to donate a large sum for the establishment of a community foundation. The Literary Digest promptly editorialized that Messers Merrill, Crocker, Fleishhacker, Shoup, Miller, and their colleagues, were to employ their considerable financial and business expertise in the service of San Francisco's general and public welfare.

This one news item produced nearly seventy replies from around the world, which were preserved in the offices of the San Francisco Foundation and recently deposited in The Bancroft Library of the University of California. A tally of these letters indicates perhaps four proposals that would interest a foundation today: a study of criminal justice procedures for indigent prisoners "to correct cruel and merciless sentences. " funds to help "these humble brown folk ," "safetyized" cars to stop auto slaughter, a crusade for better wages for "mother labor. " The remainder include several correspondents seeking money to complete inventions, from which they "and you benevolent gentlemen" would make millions; a persistent youth in New Zealand whose heart's desire was to purchase a Harley-Davidson motor- cycle; a universal peace proposal; and a variety of pleas painful to read from widows and students seeking relief from the hard times following World War I.

Mortimer Fleishhacker, the son of one of the kindly millionaires and himself long a leader in San Francisco civic affairs, in an unrecorded conversation shortly before his untimely death, recalled that many of these men had participated earlier in the 1920s in establishing the city's first community chest, and concluded that the plan for a community foundation was not as firm as the press reported. Asked if economic conditions were bad enough in 1926 to have affected the group's generosity, he replied that business here was fine then; they always had hard times in Europe. Other sources do describe depression conditions in the farm areas in the mid-twenties that may have been severe enough to cause the philanthropists to postpone their plan.

It wasn't until 1936 that the idea of a philanthropic trust for changing community needs actually took root with the establishment of the Rosenberg Foundation, followed a few years later by the Columbia Foundation. Through the efforts of the pioneer executives of these two, the San Francisco Foundation itself was set up in 1948. By the 1970s, there were over a hundred foundations located in the Bay Area, covering the spectrum of traditional, contemporary, and activist points of view and grant-making policies. The Bancroft Library study included interviews with trustees, staff, and grantees selected to reflect this spectrum.

Trustees

The foundation trustees interviewed represent a wide range of personal background and attitude, but they share very similar concerns for the responsibilities of their trusteeship. Taken as a group, these trustees have hundreds of years of experience in business and the law and voluntary agencies. They have built corporations and civic organizations from the ground up, like Dan Koshland and Philip Ehrlich, Sr. Like Caroline Charles, they know how people work together and how to resolve their difficulties. They have served an apprenticeship in other organizations engaged in more specialized activities; many of them learned from their parents a sense of responsibility to their community. In a sense, invitation to join a foundation board is a form of recognition for accomplishment in previous activities.

To some, foundation trustees are part of a homogeneous unchanging elite who run everything. However, only three of the eleven trustees interviewed are from San Francisco families. Of the other eight, one was raised in Oregon though her mother was a San Franciscan, one was raised in Stockton, one came from Oklahoma, one from Nebraska, and the rest came from other parts of the state and nation and made their own way in business and volunteer activities. The majority of them credit their success to the encouragement and friendship they received from older community leaders. In some cases, such friendships eventually led to trusteeship of the older mentors1 small private foundations. One such trustee, E.S. Gillette, reports a sense of obligation to the donor's charitable interests.

Ira Hall had worked in William Hewlett's company training program and was a fellow Stanford trustee when Hewlett urged Hall's appointment as the San Francisco Foundation's first black trustee. Caroline Charles comments that she was hand-picked by Charles de Young Elkus, Sr. for the Rosenberg board after she had learned about the City under the watchful eye of Emma McLaughlin, a grande dame of the League of Women Voters and herself a foundation trustee.

Bringing in new people, giving them experience in working together, responsibility for making decisions, close ties with their predecessors, rather than holding control in one unchanging group seems to generate imagination in seeking solutions for problems at many levels of society and also personal opportunity through achieving them. This tradition of the older generation encouraging the younger is particularly strong in the Rosenberg and San Francisco foundations, not only in selecting of trustees and grantees, but also in recent years in wel- coming the appearance of new foundations reaching into untried kinds of granting.

There were remarkable Renaissance figures guiding the early years of these foundations. Charles Elkus, Sr., for instance, whose experience included extensive familiarity with the Indians of the Southwest, chairmanship of influential committees for childrens'services and juvenile justice, and a close friendship with Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes. Elkus wrote the will that established the Rosenberg Foundation and later spent twenty-five years on its board working out its policies and seeking out younger, able board members. Through his leadership, the Foundation became nationally recognized for its granting to services for children and youth, and beloved in California for the ideas and people it supported.

From a foundation whose assets were stock in a family fruit processing firm and whose trustees were family members or officers of the firm, Elkus piloted the Rosenberg Foundation in ten short years through placing a foundation trustee on the company board, divesting the foundation of company stock and acquiring a diversified portfolio, and enlarging the family board as family trustees died or retired, until there were no family interests involved. As described by Ruth Chance, executive of the Foundation from 1958 to 1974, it is a model that might be useful today to those concerned about the closeness of ties between families, their businesses, and their foundations.

Conversely, the San Francisco Foundation began with no money. There were, however, charitable trust funds languishing in banks for want of advice on where the money was needed, so Dan Koshland, who seems never to have declined to participate in a charitable venture, saw to it that the san Francisco Foundation was set up to provide a vehicle for administering such funds. Stalwarts like Helen Crocker Russell and Emma McLaughlin joined him on the first Distribution Committee and stayed to see that the young man selected as its executive director would become knowledgeable not only about encouraging bequests and other gifts to build the Foundation's assets, but also about the organizations and people that keep the voluntary sector of the community moving.

With the groundwork for grant-making foundations laid, a new generation of trustees began to be appointed to their boards in the 1950s--people like Jean Kuhn, William Matson Roth, Frank Sloss, Emmett Solomon. This second generation of appointees to these foundation boards, not having to scramble around to get things started, generally was concerned with developing orderly procedures, and also exhibited considerable independence and introduced new awareness. A number of them had firsthand experience with government. Frank Sloss, for instance, had been exhilarated by a year in Washington on the staff of the infant Social Security Administration and later served a term on the San Francisco Public Welfare Commis- sion, because a friend pointed out that the major portion of welfare expenditures were being made by government and Sloss decided he should know something about how public agencies worked.

The impact of the passage of that early national social legislation and the research that preceded it on the bright young adults of the 1930s is hard to realize forty years later. In spite of strong opposition at the time, for many it seemed as if a means had been found to solve social ills forever. Although not prepared to give financial support to all aspects of new social thought, the Columbia, Rosenberg, and San Francisco foundations did make grants to a number of controversial ideas like worker education and understanding immigrants, thereby gaining the experience to stand their ground on other, more disruptive issues, such as the fears of communism that clouded so many activities in the early 1950s.

Board meetings and deliberations are generally reported as models of decorum and genteel discussion, but there are echoes of occasional spirited disagreements and tough bargaining. Caroline Charles tells of being alarmed when a proposal she favored was challenged by another trustee because he said he had heard that the man proposed to run the project had connections with alleged 'reds.' Although a novice trustee, she took her concerns about what she saw as unfair inference from gossip to the absolute pillar of the old guard on the board. He not only listened to her, he invited the opponents to meet with a distinguished clergyman from the proposed project's board of directors to resolve the matter, and the project got its grant.

As another example, when grants to bring basic services to farmworker families caused objections from leaders in rural communities, the question was asked: Was there pressure on the board to stop making such grants? The replies were: Some pressure, but we felt it was more important to help these people learn to do things for themselves. In those years, one foundation trustee was a businessman with major agricultural interests; he, too, advocated self-help projects in his part of the state.

Trustees are quite aware that upon occasion individual trustees have an interest in a pending application. Minor instances are treated with some indulgence. In other cases, the pattern is for the interested trustee to refrain from comment or advocacy unless asked for specific information about the application. Lapses seem generally to be handled with a form of unspoken moral suasion or a broadly- worded policy statement, relying on continued experience as a trustee increasing a member's sense of objectivity.

Board terms tend to run three years, and board members tend to be reappointed, sometimes to the point that one wonders if they don't get terribly bored, even though occasionally they take a couple of years off and then return. The appointment of board members is done with some care, even in the smaller, less visible foundations where sometimes the attorney or banker who actually manages the trust funds is the only board member outside the family, or a person with professional skills in community work is appointed in lieu of spending grantable money on staff.

In the past, there has been debate on the propriety of having a social work professional on a foundation board, although this concern may have abated as foundations have broadened their granting beyond social welfare into the arts, the environment, and other fields, and questions of representation of minority groups on foundation boards have become more urgent. Some foundations seem to find that a variety of skills among their trustees increases their overall ability to evaluate applications. And for some trustees, using their professional talents in the interest of charitable causes is one of the satisfactions of philanthropy.

Attorney Philip Ehrlich, Sr., has obviously en joyed performing the technical niceties of drawing up a number of wills creating foundations,including the Zellerbach Family Fund, and tells with relish of legal jousts on behalf of organizations he has served. In one instance, a bequest to the volunteers at Laguna Honda Hospital became controversial when the city, which ran the hospital, decided it was entitled to the money, rather than the separately incorporated volunteer association. Ehrlich convinced the city attorney that the relatively small bequest would vanish in the vastness of the city budget, but the volunteer association could ensure that it would be used for patients for things that were not otherwise available. This same issue is an important aspect of the continuing debate as to whether foundation assets would be more equitably distributed if they were transferred to the public coffers.

The businessmen on foundation boards are the ones who wring out applicants' budgets and seek norms for determining effectiveness. In smaller, traditional foundations where trustees do a considerable amount of their own site visits with applicants, the interaction between business and nonprofit administrator must be revealing for both. Insurance executive E.S. Gillette tells indignantly of going to check up on a vocational education grant made by the Miranda Lux Foundation and finding the foundation-funded machinery unused. On the other hand, his experience with the director of an innovative streetwork project for minority youths that Lux also funded, assures him that grants received will be well used.

Some trustees from the corporate world carry their philanthropic principles into business, men like shipping heir Bill Roth who stepped into an environmental fracas in San Francisco over plans to build on an unused factory site a highrise complex that would loom over the waterfront and block the view of homeowners on the hills behind. Announcing that he was in favor of a 40-foot height limit, Roth bought the old brick buildings and converted them into a cluster of boutiques and bistros which have become a landmark in the shift toward rehabilitation rather than development, and it is a commercial success. "I like to think that most things you do are entertaining as well as something else," he commented. "~hirardelli Square was done to prove that it could be done, in part--that you could take old structures and re-use them and not go to high-rise in a particular area." Such awareness of new social concerns began to be a consideration in selecting foundation trustees in the late 1960s. In 1969, William Hewlett, a retiring board member of the San Francisco Foundation and president of the Hewlett Foundation, convinced his appointing authority (community foundations' distribution committees are selected not by the foundation but by designated segments of the community such as the banks, community chest, universities, women's organizations, chamber of commerce) that it was time to have a black member of the board, and Ira Hall was appointed. Shortly thereafter, the Rosenberg Foundation appointed Herman Gallegos to its board from the Mexican-American community that the Foundation had worked with so long.

Then' a group of young men and women of means put part of their inheritances into a pot and became the Vanguard Foundation, which has won the attention of the media as well as the approval of parents like Bill Roth who thinks they make some of the more interesting grants. Like Hall and Gallegos, Peter Stern and Obie Benz of Vanguard see their role as advocacy. "How can you expect social progress unless there's some kind of struggle around controversial issues," asks Benz. "Things do slowly evolve, but they evolve partly on the basis of people willing to take a stand somewhere. "

This new generation of trustees sees themselves as working within the existing social system in spite of their concern that wealthy people make the decisions for the non-wealthy. More specifically, Stern urges new kinds of jobs and opportunities for advancement in business, since he sees the lack of jobs and income as the "big problem behind all problems, in a way. "

The Vanguard group works hard with their foundation. They meet as a group with applicants and spend a good deal of time seeking funds from others to add to their own personal funds for an annual granting budget, rather than building up capital assets. In this process they also build avenues of information and understanding between the various groups. They make small short-term grants to activist public interest groups, seeking the leverage by which a newly-organized group can produce a large amount of visibility for their position. None of the Vanguard group see the Foundation as their life's work, rather as a training ground for using their money well and making a personal impact on the social process. Perhaps some will eventually go into business or government and inject their ideals and experience into those institutions.

It is curious that there has been a recent increase in the number of foundations despite the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, which established tighter regulation and control of all nonprofit organizations and caused some concern that Congress might eventually dissolve all private philanthropy. In addition to Vanguard, there are several other relatively new foundations in the Bay Area devoted to social change, with annual budgets for grants rather than endowments. Most of these young groups have received the interest and respect of the older foundations and have developed good working relationships with them.

There is even new activity in some foundations that have never been very active nor well-endowed. Since beginning her term on the San Francisco Foundation Distribution Committee, Jean Kuhn has become something of an evangelist, not only prodding the Santa Clara County Community Foundation in her home area to become more energetic, but encouraging formation of a statewide community trust in Oregon. And in the East Bay, two small community foundations have merged and hired their first executive director. It is almost as if the increasing complexity of government and business has stimulated a renewed determination to preserve individuality and diversity and autonomy in local communities.

Grantees and Grants

In a very real sense, the direction that a foundation takes in making grants is determined by those who apply to it for funding. As John May puts it: Without grantees there would be no foundation. In turn, the process of determining which applicants will receive a grant, based on an estimate of the skills and dedication of the applicants and weighed against the trustees' knowledge of the community as a whole, provides the cumulative experience upon which future grants are made, and thus contributes to the evolution of grant-making policy.

When the Rosenberg Foundation began making grants in 1936, the idea of organized philanthropy was so new in California that executive director Leslie Ganyard spent much of her time visiting small towns to tell people that money was available to help them start new activities needed in their towns. The idea was still new enough in 1948 that before the San Francisco Foundation could begin making grants, John May had to make the Foundation known to potential applicants, and also to inform attorneys and trust officers that this community foundation provided a vehicle for the charitable instincts of clients preparing wills.

By the mid-sixties, the expansion of both nonprofit programs and awareness of social needs had reached the point where foundation income was only sufficient to fund one application for every ten received. This ratio has continued into the 1970s, skewed somewhat by the indication that a number of applications are dupli- cates, sent to a group of foundations with a request for joint funding or broadcast to all the sources listed in the foundation directories now being compiled regionally and nat ionally.

Through all these years, there is continuity in the broad areas of social concern that Bay Area foundations have funded, but the content and structure of projects funded in these areas have changed noticeably. To oversimplify, as one problem has seemed to be solved, another, often larger one, is revealed.

A review of all the grants made by two San Francisco foundations between 1936 and 1974 indicates four evolutionary stages in the structure of the organizations receiving grants which reflect changes in the thinking of applicants and society in general. The first stage could be characterized as the lady bountiful era, with the fortunate deciding what should be done for the unfortunate, often with much study and planning. In the second stage, disadvantaged groups began to be consulted on the nature and shape of their needs. The third stage was marked by a new generation of program administrators and social work professionals from disadvantaged groups themselves with external boards of directors. This stage soon merged into the fourth, current period of lively I'd-rather-do-it-myself requests for foundation grants to enable young, poor, and/or ethnic groups to both plan and manage activities on their own behalf.

In the lady bountiful era, projects to which grants were made were often an extension of taking a basket of food to the sick family of the hired hand or helping an urban settlement house. Josephine Duveneck recalls that her first venture in helping the less fortunate was teaching history of art to young Massachusetts textile factory workers, and wonders if they had any idea what she was talking about. In the 1930s, this was called "slumming" by well-bred young ladies .

By 1940, Mrs. Duveneck and her husband had settled in the Bay Area and she was deep in the activities of the American Friends Service Codttee finding homes and work for Jewish refugees. Similarly, during the 1930s, Florence Wyckoff became concerned with the plight of skilled Greek immigrants and other artisans who were jobless or working at menial jobs, and Dorothy Erskine became involved in a community survey of the miserable housing in Chinatown. They got together with friends and formed committees to do something about specific problems, raised the initial funds from individual philanthropists, and soon received Rosenberg or Columbia Foundation grants .

Bright, energetic, educated, and relatively affluent board members like these often worked alongside the few professionals then staffing social agencies. They came to know those who were receiving charity and began to realize that the recipients had ideas of their own about what was lacking in their lives. During more than a decade of depression and war, there was little time or money to do more than give emergency help where it was most urgently needed. Population grew and changed remarkably in California, housing and public buildings were in disrepair, public and voluntary services were spotty.

These accumulated concerns led to the appearance of the second stage of proposals, beginning in the late 1940s, in which the idea was to consult those who most needed houses and education and jobs in developing new services, rather than to decide for them what they needed. For instance, William Matson Roth, while president of San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association (SPUR), lineal descendant of the Chinatown housing survey, directed the organization's efforts to encouraging formation of neighborhood associations to share in decisions that were being made about their physical surroundings. And Red Stephenson worked in the dismal depressed ghetto of North Richmond to build a link between the AFSC- sponsored settlement house there and the Richmond business community.

When Stephenson sought contributions to help black families take care of their homes because they couldn't get loans from the bank, business leaders offered him money to encourage blacks to move out of town. So he went back to Neighborhood House to find out what parents wanted to do for their children, and to the University of California for a Master's degree in social work. After the parents developed a study hall program that became a standard activity in many minority communities, and the young people decided on job training as their next priority, Charles Glock from the UC Survey Research Center helped to design a research component to the job program so that what and how the boys learned could be shared with other minority youths.

Patiently the Rosenberg Foundation, for a short but lively while the Columbia Foundation, and then the San Francisco Foundation made grant after grant as each step evolved into further progress. In other parts of the state, they supported similar efforts, usually only a few thousand dollars, maybe fifteen or twenty if the project was serving a whole city: grants to revive the idea of self-help housing in Tulare County because this was something that famnworkers could do between harvest seasons, and for a TB x-ray machine and health educator in Pajaro Valley in Santa Cruz County (where Florence Wyckoff was a member of the new citizens health council) because there was no county health department.

During these same years, national foundations and the federal government were also devoting increasing efforts and amounts of money to many of the same kinds of programs. Some local projects were expanded with these larger financial resources, others were models for more ambitious efforts elsewhere. In many cases, national field representatives contacted the local foundations to learn where to find the ideas and people they were interested in, but the general impression is that something was lost in the translation. Welcome as the additional funding has been, recipients and observers report that sometimes the complicated reporting and changing guidelines have left them with a sense of lack of control at their own agency, without supportive feedback on the quality of their work, and occasionally damaging rivalries in the competition for funds.

The third stage of evolution in proposals receiving grants from local foundations came inevitably from the second. If a proposal, and the organization making it, is based on the principle that poor folk, minorities, or the handicapped have abilities to be respected and encouraged, then it follows that, probably sooner than later, the staff director of the organization should be a member of the group served, both as recognition and as opportunity. It is a measure of the success of men like Red Stephenson, Carl May, and Bard McAllister that the group process experience they provided was so effective that blacks, chicanos, and other young minority people did begin to become agency executives themselves.

In the mid-60s, Orville Luster was one of the blacks ready to assume such leadership. As a young counselor at a San Francisco youth detention facility, he had early been involved in the streetwork project called Youth for Service, and became director on the urging of the young blacks who used the program. Under his guidance, the program navigated the shoals of independence from its sponsors, approval for funding by the United Crusade, and the ups and downs of federal funding.

He speaks with affection of the encouragement he received from older leaders in the black community, like Reverend Howard Thurman and San Francisco State professor Seaton Manning, and with pride of the young people he has seen come through Youth for Service as staff or clients and go on to responsible positions in public service. There are also somber notes in Luster's almost hopeless view of black capitalism and warning of some of the hazards facing newer 'directors of community agencies who seem to have lost touch with the kind of patient detailed footwork he considers still essential in providing real service.

In the fourth, I'd-rather-do-it-myself kind of proposals to foundations, an indigenous group determines on its own that something needs to be done and puts together its own, usually fluid, organization to do it. These began to appear in the late 1960s~in the storm of activities of the youth movement, ex-prisoners groups, art and dance projects, and a variety of minority group efforts. Although many of these had private philanthropists in the background and found a variety of goverment funds available, the impetus and energy were internal; they were ready to happen.

Two such organizations are the Spanish Speaking Unity Council in Oakland and Self-Help for the Elderly in San Francisco's Chinatown, in which members of the community learn by doing the skills of defining a problem, reaching a consensus through a representative group& members, and following through under the guidance of a director who is one of their own. Sam Yuen feels he waited most of his life for this opportunity to use his training in classical philosophy and doctorate in sociology. Arabella Martinez, now a community organization consultant for the Ford Foundation, speaks with respect and affection of the older Mexican-Americans and Negroes in Oakland who encouraged her to undertake graduate education so that she would be equipped to staff the Unity Council--"pay her dues," she recalls legendary black political leader D.G. Gibson saying to many of her generation--"for being here," another grantee remarked.

Both Martinez and Yuen express a commitment to making the present system of allocating public resources work and to making it flexible to the needs and purposes of their communities. Starting with the needs of elderly Chinese, nearly imprisoned in the culture of another time and place, Yuen envisions a continuum of services that would enrich the lives of most of his community. Martinez describes the creation of linkages of understanding, not only with younger chicanos, but with the more established business and civic community, through which the Unity Council has been successful in building community services to the Spanish-speaking and Fruitvale community.

In textbooks, this process is called community organization or, in somewhat different terms, community development. Like previous stages of foundation granting, community development grants were made to help people help themselves. In some places community development eventually became decidedly controversial, particularly in instances where self-help projects overlapped with labor organizing and political activity.

Asked how a foundation deals with such issues, one trustee stated, "~mericans love progress but they hate change." And an executive director noted that the foundation could not fund political activity, but that it is interested in leadership training in every level of society. Once trained, a foundation has no control over how people use their leadership skills. The grantees for such projects report their own differences of opinion with the organizers of more controversial activities, and also resistance from some leaders in towns where self-help projects were undert aken .

Although there is chronological progression in these four types of nonprofit organizations applying to foundations for grants, organizations of each type continue to exist in more or less harmony, and variations in method and motivation continue to appear, such as collective decision-making and the women's movement, adding new components to the social dialogue. For all of them, meeting the current budget and finding sources of funds for new activities are a continuous process in which foundation grants are but one source of money, and several ideas are in various stages of planning with grantors at all times with an eye to next year's budget. Even with increasing government services and granting programs, there continues to be not enough money to supply all the programs existing or hoped for. It is a question whether the financial crunch is more acute for an established program or an untried one. The untried program has the virtue of novelty, and sometimes foundations are charged with a tendency toward fads : that, if a new method or population is being suggested, each foundation wants to have a program demonstrating their responsiveness to it.

Another suggestion is that of school superintendent Richard Foster, that grant money is the only uncommitted resource available with which to encourage imagination and energy among the staffs of larger organizations when they get into a rut of decreasing effectiveness. In addition to seeking outside grant money to envigorate the Berkeley school district, Foster also established a superintendent's fund from which to make grants as a form of reward and encouragement for teachers wanting to add something to an individual classroom. This kind of small internal granting mechanism was reported by several other grantees interviewed, and included a seminar in granting principles which sociologist Charles Glock set up in response to requests from UC students serving on the distribution committee of a Chancellor's fund for student-initiated community projects.

Foundation money is often spoken of as challenge grants: approved on condi- tion that the applicant raise a matching amount from other sources. Frustrating as this can be, grantees and grantors describe it as a useful tool for eliciting greater support from members and others, increasing the participation of board members, and making the organization better known in the community. In recent years, the San Francisco Conservatory of Music has been a notable example of a respected organization grown static which has been revived by successful and sizable challenge grants. Whether it was the effect of the grants, the appointment of a particularly skilled new director, or the inspiration of those on the board of directors who initiated both, the Conservatory has greatly increased its participation in the musical life of the city in less than ten years. Milton Salkind was a distinguished concert pianist when he became director of the Conservatory and was discovered also to have a talent for administration. He speaks from personal experience of the needs of young musicians and has a hatful of ideas about how music can become accessible to more people.

In general, those who inspire the confidence of foundations, whether staff or board member of a grantee organization, are dedicated to their organization's cause. They share determination, patience with detail, a willingness to work hard xiv

and often long, have a knack for drawing others in to work with them, sense or quickly learn how things happen in their community--"and their egos are involved," says Red Stephenson wryly.

One of the hazards of this kind of strong personality is what young activists call "burnout." Sometimes the dedication and expectations are so high that the inevitable frustrations of reaching the goal cause a noisy crisis, the abrupt departure of individuals, or the energy and dedication are lost.

The interviews with foundation grantees produced an unexpected amount of discussion of the operation of nonprofit organizations. Much of this material has to do with the delicate relationships between board members and staff, and developing community approval for new ideas. Grantees' recollections of the process of developing and securing funds for a program are not as detailed, perhaps due to diffidence in speaking of financial relationships, perhaps because the important thing was to proceed with the project.

The time for thoughtfildiscussion between foundation and grantee is largely before a grant is made. There seems to be relatively little contact once the grant check has been mailed out, although grantees often have positive views about what foundations should be funding. A questionnaire the San Francisco Foundation sent in 1974 to a sample of recent applicants, some who received grants and some who did not, asking how the Foundation could be more helpful, yielded similar findings. One majority response was a wistful request for some sense of "how am I doing?" during the term of a grant; another sought technical assistance in doing projects better, a service some foundations are beginning to provide.

Foundation Staff

Central to the grant-making process is the person who does the work-up.on proposals, who interprets the trustees to the applicants and the applicants to the trustees. This person, be he/she staff, occasionally trustee, or consultant, is the fulcrum on which a foundation's effectiveness turns. Since relatively few foundations have staff, there are as yet no courses of training for foundation executives, although every campus and some governmental agencies offer workshops in grantsmanship: how to succeed in applying for grant funds.

In the beginning, for small local foundations like the ones in the Bay Area, a superior clerical person with some knowledge of the community and/or social work was selected,generally upon the recommendation of a trustee and of similar background to the trustees. Marjorie Elkus's recollection of being executive of the Columbia Foundation preserves the simplicity and exhilaration of those days clearly, since she retired before tkpost-1945 explosion of social concern. She saw her position as an ideal opportunity to do something for social welfare and felt that her board left the program largely to her judgment. The essence of giving money away well is the skill and understanding with which the foundation executive elicits from applicants a detailed picture of their financial and organizational strengths and weaknesses and their competence to accomplish the project proposed, validates that data in conversation with a variety of people knowledgeable about the applicant or proposed idea, and then presents these findings to the trustees for their decision.

Interestingly, grantees often become a part of this verification process and find themselves asked for comment on the qualifications of related projects. Foundation staff, in turn, are consulted by other grant-makers, often for response to larger programs related to local ones. Foster points out that this can become another continuous process by which one is reading others' proposals, writing one's own, and implementing yet another program or policy, with observations from each feeding into the others. In some quarters this is looked at askance as the 'new knowledge industry,' a dire interlocking directorate between foundations, universities, and government. It seems rather to be an enriching process by which the data and skills acquired in one eqerience carry over to another, encouraging adaptability, efficiency, and, to the extent that new individuals keep entering from various segments of the population, accessibility.

Giving away money well is hard work in the opinion of John May, who built the San Francisco Foundation's resource bank of advisors by tapping the formidable collective acquaintance of the founding trustees, and who has spent over a quarter of a century advocating the improvement of foundation techniques. Where to put a foundation's payout so it will do the most good? Is the best use to give visibility to a new idea, to give experience to bright individuals even though they go on to other organizations, to offer matching money to encourage more people to make charitable contributions, to prod public thinking and public agencies to institute changes beyond the resources of private philanthropy?

These and similar questions became more complex as the number of applications increased through the 1960s and required developing contacts with an increased number of private organizations and public agencies. Curiously, the increase of government grants in these same years, also directed to the quality of life, did not decrease the number of applications for foundation funds, although there were some shifts as certain kinds of applications went to public agencies rather than foundations. In fact, the greater total of grant funds available seems to have prompted more people to try their hand at devising a project and expanding their organization's program.

In some years, the number of applicants has been so great that it may be four months before a particular application gets to the trustees. A good percentage of total applications are so far outside of the guideliens of the foundation receiving them that the executive is authorized to turn them down without trustee action. Some Bay Area foundations send notice of such action to every rejected applicant as a matter of policy, although there is concern among executives about the number of foundations that make no response to many applications. Once the preliminary screening of likely applicants is completed, staff people must present the results to trustees with recommendations for action on specific proposals. In a sense, they become advocates for the proposals recommended for approval, although unable professionally to indicate their advocacy to applicants or personal partisanship to trustees. Foundation executives work in a context of individual proposals of value presented by able people which must be balanced against the responsibility of trustees to make choices based on their judgment of the broad needs of the overall community and the available funds for granting.

Even though their immediate hopes are dashed, applicants quite often thank a small foundation like Rosenberg for a rejection. Their appreciation is very real for the careful, friendly hearing they have received from the executive, which in many cases helps applicants to clarif'y their goals and evaluate their organization, and may give them the experience &d practice to go on and seek funding successfully elsewhere. When a grant does come through, most applicants feel their gratitude toward the foundation staff. Not only have they been certified capable of doing the project, but someone with an overview of the community agrees that it is worth doing.

"Grant-making is a lot harder work than I thought it would be ,"commented Bill Somerville, recently appointed executive director of the San Mateo Foun- dation, who cameto the position with graduate training in social science and a list of credits as an innovator and administrator in project development. "I've always admired Ruth Chance and John May, but I have a great deal more respect now for their skill and objectivity in finding the new, good ideas among all the variety of proposals presented." Somerville's experience seems to be the model that is emerging for foundation executives: professional academic training plus experience in beginning, planning, and managing nonprofit enterprises, often with some of the academic work done as a part of or after some of the experience. Most foundation executives now know what it's like to meet a budget, write a proposal, live within the requirements of reporting to a funding source.

To be a foundation executive is a step upward in career status, as being appointed a trustee represents a promotion and an opportunity to apply previous experience on a broader basis. The dedication and energy and thoroughness that a foundation looks for in the person who is going to operate a grantee's program are probably also what they seek in a foundation executive.

As the number of Bay Area foundations has increased, working relationships between them have also developed. The few staff executives have always kept in touch informally, referring some applicants and sharing some grants; but in 1968, a group of San Francisco Foundation staff people began to meet regularly for 'brown bag sessions.' More foundation people attended as they became aware of the lunchtime meetings, including trustees of unstaffed foundations and consultants on grant-making. In time, the group has become a clearing house for ideas and information and for encouraging improvements in foundation procedures and staffing. It also serves as a forum for developing regional participation in the dialogue with national foundations, regulatory agencies, and legislative and other study committees on the various needs of society, which, in turn, may well have an impact on smaller foundations ' granting policies and procedures.

Until recently, few Bay Area foundations besides Rosenberg made grants statewide, and there has been little contact with foundations in the Los Angeles area. There has been some feeling that, although Southern California is wealthier and larger than the north, foundations there were less interested in funding innovative social and cultural programs. Contacts with philanthropy in the Los Angeles area are being developed by some newer foundations, such as LARAS, whose Bay Area-based representative, Mary Anna Colwell, reports increasing activity there.

Conclusion

What there is, then, between the three points of the foundation compass-- staff and grantees and trustees--is a mutual enabling process that brings new points of view in contact with old, people from all walks of life to awareness of each other, and considers how these are related and may be acted upon. The linkages between individuals in these groups are many and intricate and extend outward through the constituencies of each like a nervous system or the delicate fluff of a seed pod. To the extent that this nervous system is complete, the foundation community reflects the entire community, its strengths and weaknesses, its priorities and pressures. When the linkages are many and strong, the social process works well; when they do not exist or are blocked, there is trouble.

Because of the delicate relationship of a foundation to its applicants in monitoring the social process and encouraging promising activities, there is hazard in suggestions by some that foundations should initiate projects themselves. Although foundations are perhaps in a unique position to make an objective evaluation of current needs, to select some from others for foundation initiation poses a threat to that objectivity. Projects initiated by a foundation might come to reflect a foundation's priorities rather than society's. It would seem that stronger projects would come from people and organizations already working on an urgent problem, perhaps as yet unknown to foundations. The foundations' task would then be to seek out those people and through dispassionate encouragement and advice make their ideas more effective.

In looking at the distance traveled by these innovative Bay Area foundations in the forty years of this study, there is both an internal consistency and a significant shift in emphasis. In the 1930s and 1940s, the few foundations in operation were making grants for workers' education, health services for the poor, improving race relations, along with community recreation centers, teacher institutes, and central record-keeping to prevent juvenile delinquency. These issues were then on the so-called cutting edge of social change. But, even into the 1950~~the trustees approving these grants were not thinking in terms of leading the way for changes in public attitudes; they were trying to make things easier for individuals in distress.

By the late 1960s and 1970s, there were a dozen or two Bay Area foundations making some grants out there on the crest of the wave. There were still grants to improve education by means of massive grants for new buildings with the donors' names displayed, and statistical studies to improve the criminal justice system, but the grants were now also going to neighborhood groups, legal defense funds, youth militant groups, environmental protection committees and the like, and government legislation was going right along with them, concerned with broad issues of improving the quality of life and the social process for the community as a whole. Perhaps the nature of the cutting edge is that it cuts both ways : we want social justice, but we don't want higher taxes; we want smog-free air, but we don't want to give up private cars; we want youth to be independent and think for itself, but we don't want it on the board of directors.

In recent years, both regulatory pressures from the federal government and insistent requests for recognition from new nonprofit organizations have led philanthropic foundations, like other institutions, to pause to examine their role and their effectiveness in society. Some foundations seem to conclude that society will always include the disadvantaged, and that the best use of their funds is in support of worthy established institutions. Other foundations and their grantees occasionally feel as if they are reinventing the wheel, trying to deal again with the problems of forty years ago. It does seem that there has been progress, however, toward broader understanding and concern in the work of many Bay Area foundations. -'The original model was for us, the fortunate, to do something for them, the unfortunate. Current grants to grassroots and public interest efforts reflect a sense that, although some may have lowered their voices, we are all in this together--what benefits 'them' will strengthen the whole society.

A number of grantees and foundation executives even express a need for foundations, too, to monitor government policy and programs in which bureaucratic requirements may have obscured the intent of assuring the benefits of progress to a greater number of citizens, as government has traditionally been assigned to monitor business. Kingman Brewster, president of Yale University, some of whose missionary graduates founded the University of California, in a speech honoring the centennial of San Francisco Children's Hospital in 1975 described an even. broader concept. He prophesies that, although our dependence upon government will increase as our human and social problems exceed the reach and grasp of purely private solutions, solid private foundations are the beacon for light and guidance by which to navigate the public interest. "BY renewal of our private trust in the public interest, we may serve to raise the standards of the public enterprise as well as of our own." Project History

This study of foundation leaders in the Bay Area was undertaken to obtain a historical picture of the operation and functions of local philanthropic foundations in the years 1936-1974 by means of a series' of interviews with significant participants, for use as primary research documents. The retirement in 1974 of Ruth Chance and John May, at one time the only foundation executives in the area, provided an opportune demarcation point for a backward look.

A panel of twenty-three interviewees, including these two executives, was selected with the help of foundation advisors to include trustees, grantees, and staff of more active local foundations representing traditional and contemporary points of view. Budget limitations prevented interviewing a larger sample of the many able individuals presently involved in the work of foundations. Inter- views of varying length were conducted between March, 1974, and May, 1975, and included material on personal background, as well as foundation experience and observations on current issues in philanthropy. Also included was an interview with a grantee recorded by a community organization in 1971. The major portion of the interviews deals with the Rosenberg and San Francisco foundations, since they have the longest history of grant-making operations from which to seek data on changes in the community and impact of grants.

Tapes of the interviews were transcribed in the Regional Oral History Office. Transcripts were rough-edited by the interviewer and sent to interviewees for review. Some revisions were made, as noted in individual interview histories, including the replacement of one transcript with a more detailed article by the interviewee. The manuscripts were final-typed, indexed, and bound in five volumes, roughly in the order in which the transcripts werC returned to the oral history office. The completed series is available for research in The Bancroft Library, at UCLA, and at the Business Branch of the San Francisco Public Library. There are a number of other interviews in The Bancroft Library with valuable relevant material, including the full memoirs of Dan Koshland, Emma McLaughlin, Helen MacGregor, and the memoirists in the Arts and the Community Series.

Gabrielle Morris, Interviewer-Editor

21 June 1976 Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California at Berkeley The Bancroft Library University of ~alifornia/~erkeley Regional Oral History Office

Bay Area Foundation History Series Volume IV

Frank Sloss

TRADITION AND CHANGE: CONTINUING EDUCATION OF A FOUNDATION BOARD MEMBER

An Interview Conducted by Gabrielle Morris

@ 1976 by The Regents of the University of California TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Frank Sloss

INTERVIEW HISTORY

1. FAMILY PHILANTHROPIC INTERESTS

2. COMMUNITY SERVICE AND UNDERSTANDING 1934 Social Security Board Legal Staff San Francisco Coordinating Council California Adoption Committee Observations of the San Francisco and Rosenberg Foundations Public Welfare Commission

3. JOINING THE ROSENBERG FOUNDATION Fellow Board Members, 1963 Some Granting and Financial Policies Other Observations on Board Members The Board Deals with an Agenda

4. CHALLENGING ISSUES Impact of Federal Grants and Regulations 1972 Guidelines Review: Narrower Focus for Greater Impact Evaluating Applicants and Applications Minority and Youth Grantees New Organizational Models Emerge

5. RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY Considerations Regarding New Board Members Avoiding Conflicts of Interest Feedback from the Community Grant Results and Foundation Impact

.6. DILEMMAS OF THE 1970s Economic Pressures and Staffing Needs The Range of Organizations Called 'Foundation' Need for Information and Referral Service for Applicants Social Impact of Foundation Investments

7. LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES Selecting a New Executive Director The President's Routine

POSTSCRIPT TO INTERVIEW, April 16, 1975

APPENDIX - Address Delivered to United Community Fund, May 24, 1961

INDEX INTERVIEW HISTORY

Frank Sloss was interviewed in order to document the experience which prepared him to become president of the Rosenberg Foundation in 1974 and his observations on some of the responsibilities of that community service. Two interviews were recorded, on September 27 and October 11, 1974, in his pleasant office in the large, discreetly-bustling firm of Heller, Ehrmann, White and McAuliffe, in which he is a partner.

A man of moderate size, quiet in dress and manner, modest almost to the point of shyness, he began the interview with a summary of his family's long tradition of involvement in the cultural, charitable, and commercial life of San Francisco. For Mr. Sloss, the pattern included Harvard Law School and service in Washington in the Social Security Administration during its early days, which he describes with a sense of the excitement of testing those frontiers of social legislation. That experience was the beginning of lasting friendships with other able young attorneys, such as Charles Wyzanski, Jr., who also recently participated in an oral history study of the Ford Foundation, of which he is a trustee.

Mr. Sloss touches briefly on his community service activities, including board membership in several Jewish welfare organizations, statewide experience such as the California Adoptions Committee, and a term on the San Francisco Public Welfare Commission, which he saw as a very conservative and invisible body and hoped to liberalize. Joining the Rosenberg Foundation board in 1963, he felt, was an honor.

From this vantage point, he comments with interest and objectivity on the tide of events that swept over through the Rosenberg and other foundations in the ten years that he has been a trustee: the emergence of new kinds of community organizations from the social and ethnic urgencies brought to light by public programs, the sharp rein on foundations from the regulations of the 1969 Tax Reform Act, and the f ast-changing , inflationary economic conditions that began in the early 1970s.

In conclusion, and more immediate to the Rosenberg Foundation itself, Mr. Sloss talks with appreciation of working with executive director Ruth Chance who, as executive and only professional staff, was the Foundation to hundreds of applicants between 1958 and 1974. He also describes the process of selecting a new executive director, Kirke Wilson, in preparation for her retirement .

With an attorney's precision, Mr. Sloss reviewed the transcript of these interviews, noting his preference for s$ylistic details and verifying dates and names, but made few substantive changes.

Interviewer-Edit or

17 December 1975 Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley FR.ANK H. SLOSS Biographical Statement

Birth:-- San Francisco, California, November 18, 1908; son of Judge M, C. and Hattie Hecht Sloss. Education:- San Francisco public schools; Stanford University (A .B. 1929); Harvard Law School (LL.B. 1932) --Family: Married May 8, 1938 to Eleanor Lieberman. Two children: David, born August 1, 1939, and Helen, born July 21, 1942. Profession: Attorney at Law. Practiced in San Francisco as associate and then partner in Sloss & Turner, later Sloss & Eliot, from 1932 to 1969, except for two periods of government service: 1. From January to September, 1936, as Attorriey in the Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Board, Washington, D. C. 2. From 1942 to 1946, as Regional Price Attorney, later Regional Price Executive, San Francisco Regional Office, Office of Price Administration.

Since January 1, 1970, partner in Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe- Business Directorship: Director since 1953 of The Ehporiwn Capwell Company, later Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.

--.- Social Welfare Activities: Among many others in the past: President,, San Francisco Jewish Community center 1941-1944 Campaign Chairman, Jewish Welfare Federation, 1938 and 1348 President, Community chest of San Francisco, 1954-1955 Social Welfare Activitieq (cont .) : President;, Children s Home Society of California, 1959-1960, and consultant on adoption problems to California . Department of Sociarl Welfare and United States Children's Bureau Member 1959-1962, and President in 1962, of Public Welfare Commission of San Francisco Current :

Director, Rosenberg Foundation ;president, 1974 Board member, Bay Area Social Planning Council Chairman, Citizens1 Committee on Transportation for the Handicapped

Writings: Articles in various legal and historical publications.

Memberships: Various Bar Associations and Committees Various historical societies Various civic organizations

Religious Affiliation: Jewish

Political Preference: Democratic

April 14, 1971 ÿÿ ate of Interview: 27 September 19741

1. FAMILY PHILANTHROPIC INTERESTS

Morris: We're interested not only in your own personal experience, but also your observations of people like John May and Ruth Chance, who have been so active as executives of foundations in San Francisco.

Sloss: I don't know if I have superlatives enough in my vocabulary to do justice to that [laughs1.

Morris: Why don't we start with the questions I sent you and see where those lead us. Will you tell me a bit of the background of your own interest in civic and philanthropic activities, which seems to go back quite a ways; the vita you sent me indicated that you were with the Social Security Board in the thirties.

Sloss: That was incidental, because that was a job, you see; that was not a volunteer activity on the side, although the experience was not irrelevant to what I did afterwards. But coming back to your letter: the first question is, ''IS there a tradition for this kind of service among your family and friends," to which the answer is, indeed, yes.

Both my parents, I would say, were among the most prominent citizens of this city, in connection with that sort of thing, as well as other things, and I was brought up on it. This used to be a great deal of the dinner table conversation in the house when I was a boy-- when events were taking place like the formation of the Community Chest, in which both my parents were very active; my father was the first chairman of the budget committee, and my mother was a very devoted fund-raiser.

My mother had been, in the early twenties--perhaps even earlier than that--a member of the State Board of Charities and Corrections, as it then was--the predecessor of the present State Social Welfare Board. My father had been the first president of the Federation of Jewish Charities--the old Federation, when it was just a federation of local agencies; and he was president for years of the Pacific Hebrew Orphan Asylum and Home Society, which was the corporation that then operated both a home for the aged and a home for children. Later that split up, and they have since become the Jewish Home for the Sloss : Aged, on the one hand, and Homewood Terrace on the other.

My mother was very active in The Children's Agency; she was one of Katharine Felton's stalwart supporters. Does the name Katharine Felton mean anything to you?

Morris : Yes, but we don't have all that much on the work she was doing.

Sloss : There's a book on her," which my mother helped sponsor, incidentally.

Morris : Was it called The Children's Agency?

Sloss : The Children's Agency, which was one aspect of the Associated Charities, both of which were run by Miss Felton. I remember there used to be dinners in our house when Miss Felton would come around and get my parents' help and advice on how she could get some new thing started in the community, and who would be the best people to talk to and how to organize a committee. As I say, this was all in the blood.

Morris : What brought on the decision to organize a Community Chest?

Sloss : I think what really brought it about, more than anything else, was the World War I experience of a combined campaign, principally for the agencies that were serving the servicemen. I don't remember just what the name of it was, but it was a little like the US0 of World War 11.

I know it included the Catholic Agency, the National Jewish Welfare Board, the Salvation Army, and the YMCA. That was one experience in joint fund raising. Then, of course, the Jewish community, as usual, had pioneered this by organizing the Federation of Jewish Charities back in 1910. There was some other kind of united campaign in World War I, I think; I don't remember the details.

Morris : In addition to the bond campaigns?

Sloss : Oh, yes. You mean liberty bonds, government bonds? No, this was for charitable causes.

The group that was instrumental in starting the Community Chest was the Council of Social Agencies. The Council, at least in San Francisco, came before the Chest--the Council of Social Agencies was concerned with coordinating the work of the agencies, ascertaining

"Jean Burton, Katharine Felton and her Social Work in San Francisco, Stanford University Press, 1947. Sloss: gaps in services and all that sort of thing. I believe that it is historically verifiable that it was the Council that formed the Chest.

Then, in due course, when the Chest got going, the Council became a department of the Chest. Because until the reorganization of a few years ago, when UBAC [united Bay Area crusade] was set up, in San Francisco the social planning function was performed by a department of the Community Chest; that was not the typical pattern elsewhere. But I think it worked very well.

Morris: You said that the Jewish community "as usual1' pioneered--

Sloss: That was a chauvinistic remark that I should not permit myself.

Morris: I don't know that it's chauvinistic, because it's an observation that has struck me in reading various materials on Bay Area philanthropic and civic leaders. Many of them have been in the Jewish community and have been distinguished in their fund raising and in their personal gifts. I wonder if there is anything in the Jewish tradition or teachings that supports this kind of thing--or is it peculiar to the Bay Area?

Sloss: I think there is. I think the importance given to charity in the Jewish religious tradition is very great. Of course, I realize this is also true of other religious groups; but I have a feeling that perhaps the degree to which it is an integral part is somewhat higher in the Jewish tradition.

And then there is another thing; it is a part of the Jewish tradition in America that goes back to the first Jewish settlement in the United States, which was in New Amsterdam in the days when it was a Dutch colony. The story is that a group of Jews were on a ship that, by accident or mischance--they were headed for somewhere else-- found itself in New Amsterdam. They wanted to stay, and when Peter Stuyvesant permitted them to stay, one of the promises that they made to him was that they would always take care of their own; none of them would ever become a charge on the community. This is a very old tradition, you see.

Morris: That's a familiar tradition. What's interesting about the Bay Area, which is what I know best, is that the Jewish community, or individual Jewish leaders, have taken the lead in many activities for the whole community--cultural and, as you say, it sounds as if there were Jewish leaders in the founding of the Community Chest.

Sloss: Oh, yes. I think that in that respect San Francisco was--I don't know that it is any more--a little different from other major cities. In California, the Jews grew up with the community; you see, there were Jews here from the pioneer days. This is not true of a city like New Sloss: York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, or whatever, because they all go back to times before any Jews were there. So the Jews there were newcomers when community institutions were created. Not so here. They grew up with it.

My goodness, take ladies like my mother, Mrs. M. S. Koshland an's mother), and Mrs. Sigmund Stern (Mrs. Walter Haas' mother)-- it's almost inconceivable to think of what the musical life of San Francisco would have been like without them; they practically led the way in forming the symphony, the opera, and any number of other musical activities. If there was any list of sponsors of any cultural event that didn't have those three ladies on it, it didn't amount to anything [laughs].

Morris: As a young man growing up were you expected to come along and help at the benefits? How were you introduced to participating yourself?

Sloss : No, I don't think there was much of that sort of thing. It was at a more sophisticated level than that; it wasn't the charity bazaar sort of thing that my parents were interested in. They were at a policy- making board-community organization level.

Morris: You were president of the Jewish Community Center in 1941-1944. Were you also at that time professionally in the Office of Price Adminis- tration?

Sloss: Yes, but again, that just so happened--there was no connection between those two. Actually, I was active in the Center before that. Really, the first thing in community work that I did get interested in was the Jewish Community Center. I don't know how much time you want to waste on that--this isn't the story of my life you're writing.

Morris: We would like to touch on as much of it as possible. What were the things particularly that you found valuable and meaningful in working with these community organizations?

Sloss: Let'sbeginwiththeJewishCommunityCenter,whichIgotinto,like so many other things, accidentally. Somebody would ask you to do something on a committee, and you find it interesting or you don't, and one thing leads to another. The next thing you know, you're president of the doggone organization. That's the way it generally happened with me [laughs1.

The first one I really got in was the Center. Lloyd Dinkelspiel, Sr. (the father of the present Lloyd Dinkelspiel who is a member of this firm--his father was also a member of this firm; I wasn't at that time, but I knew Lloyd very well) was then president of the Jewish Community Center, which was new--the new building had just been built at 3200 California Street. He organized a membership Sloss : campaign; they wanted to interest more of the young people of the community in joining the Center. He asked me to serve on the committee for the membership campaign.

I think this was only a year or two after I had gotten out of law school--probably about 1934, '35, '36, or something like that. So I got on that committee and found myself very much interested in what was going on at the Center, which I had known nothing about.

Louis Blumenthal was the executive of the Center, and he was very skillful at glomming onto promising young people and figuring out how to put them to work. &ma Loewy, who afterwards became his wife, was the assistant director. They put me on some committees and got me to do various jobs. The next thing I knew I was on the board. So this had been an active interest of mine for a number of years, until in 1941, in the natural order of things, I became president. The fact that that was also the period when I was in the government was purely coincidental; I was in the government because it was war time. COMMUNITY SERVICE AND UNDERSTANDING

1934 Social Security Board Legal Staff

Morris: I mentioned the OPA because I understand that is where you and John May first became acquainted.

Sloss: That is true. But let's go back for a minute--now you've got me started on the Center. At this point the Social Security board experience comes in, because that was back in thirty-six--the New Deal period. Remember, I was a fairly fresh graduate of the Harvard Law School and had been very much under the influence of Felix Frankfurter, who was extremely active at this point in finding young men to go to Washington to do interesting jobs in the New Deal.

Morris: Frankfurter was still at Harvard?

Sloss: Yes. It was at third hand that I got into it. One of the first people for whom Frankfurter made a recommendation was Frances Perkins, who was the Secretary of Labor, you remember, under Roosevelt--the first woman who had ever been in the cabinet of the United States. Anyway, Miss Perkins wanted some able young lawyer to be Solicitor of the Labor Department. Traditionally, the Solicitor of the Labor Department had been some broken-down labor lawyer. She wasn't satisfied with that. Frankfurter recommended Charlie Wyzanski (~harlesE. Wyzanski, Jr.), who is now and has been for years and years a United States District Judge in Boston.

So Charlie went to Washington and was recruiting a staff of lawyers for the Labor Department, and he got one of my closest friends and associates from law school, Tom Eliot (who was the grand- son of President Eliot of Harvard, and who has since had a distinguished career, including being chancellor of Washington University at St. Louis until quite recently) to go to Washington and work for the Labor Department.

One of the things that the Labor Department was doing, and that Frances Perkins was doing, was to establish a committee on economic Sloss : security--the group that put together the Social Security Act. Tom Eliot was assigned to staff this committee, and when the Social Security Act was passed and the Social Security board created, Tom rather naturally became the first General Counsel for the Social Security board.

When he was trying to put together his own legal staff, he wrote t,o me and said, "Wouldn't you like to come to Washington and get in on all these exciting things that are happening here?"

I thought this would be great; I would like to very much indeed. I spoke to my father, who was the head of the law firm that I was then in, and he said, "I think if you don't stay too long it would be a fine thing for you. "

He said, in effect, "YOU can take a leave of absence and stay away for six months or so and it won't do you any ham; but if you stay away too long, you're not going to make much progress in working into the law practice." Anyway, the firm said sure, by all means do it for, let us say, six months.

The six months turned out to be eight, but I did it and it was a marvelous experience. It gave me an insight into something I'd known nothing at all about--of course, it was just beginning--which was federally-funded public assistance.

I was working on the legal staff, principally on the legal defense of the legislation, which was under constitutional attack. In that process you learn a lot about the law that's in question.

Morris: The Social Security Act itself was under attack?

Sloss: Oh, yes; of course. The decisions in the Supreme Court that upheld the act were very close. The case was argued, incidentally, by my friend Judge Wyzanski that I've just spoken of, before he was a judge. This was tied in with the court packing fight. It was when most New Deal legislation was being declared unconstitutional, and there was very grave uncertainty as to whether that law would survive.

Morris: Were there other Californians besides yourself back there in those early days of the Social Security Administration?

Sloss: I don'trecall any other Californians on the legal staff. Surely there were other Californians at work there. San Francisco Coordinating Council

Sloss: Thereweretwothings Igotactiveinnext. IthinkitwasLloyd Dinkelspiel again who was responsible for getting me into the Jewish National Welfare Fund, as it was then called. It is one of the predecessors of the present Jewish Welfare Federation. I was vice- chairman of the campaign in thirty-seven, and chairman in thirty- eight. That really grew out of my work at the Center. I didn't think I'd be any good for that; I have never considered find raising one of the things I do well--I think I do it rather badly, and I certainly dislike it. But I got involved just the same.

Then I got into things with the Community Chest, too--that was just campaigning at first, but then I somehow or other got on committees. This grew largely from the Center work. Then I got into the Coordinating Council.

Morris: Was this separate from the Community Chest?

Sloss: Yes. The Coordinating Council, as it was in San Francisco, had been set up by city ordinance as a city commission--an instrumentality of the city government. It was to concern itself with youth and delinquency and related problems, and to coordinate the activities public and private in that field.

When it was set up, it consisted of six executives of city departments concerned with children and youth; that is, the Superin- tendent of Schools; the Director of the Bureau of Child Hygiene of the Health Department; the Chief of Police; the Chief Probation Officer of the Juvenile Court; the Director of the Recreation Department; and the Director of Public Welfare. The ordinance provided that four other members should be appointed by the mayor, presumably to represent the private agencies, because the six public departments were automatically represented.

What the mayor did was to take the advice of the Community Chest, and the Community Chest talked to the youth agency people. I guess that's how I got into it; I guess the Jewish Center people must have recommended me. There were also Monsignor Flanagan representing Catholic Social Service; Lucille Henry of the Community Chest staff; and Georgiana Carden, of a marvelous old agency called the Public Dance Hall Committee.

Morris: Was that to regulate unseemly behavior?

Sloss: This was a privately supported agency. The idea at first was to supervise public dance halls--to keep an eye on unseemly behavior. But this very remarkable woman, Miss Carden, had a different conception Sloss: of it. She thought that since the public dance halls were where a lot of the young people went, this was a highly important recreational activity; it was not merely to be regulated, but to be fostered--to make sure that it was wholesome, yes, but equally to make sure that it was available. That was a Chest agency.

Anyway, we four private citizens went on this Council with the six public officials. The executive of the Coordinating Council was a very capable social worker, Phoebe Matthews. She had a lot of ideas, and I think we did some worthwhile things: organized district councils in various neighborhoods of the city, and got the agency people together.

And then the whole thing fell apart, and I learned a little about politics that I had not known before. What happened was something very bad for the organization--otherwise it was very good: Miss Matthews got married and left the job. Suddenly our friends at City Hall became interested in the Coordinating Council because there was a salaried job to be filled.

Morris: The executive, then, was a city employee?

Sloss: The executive was a city employee. She had come in with it when it was formed; but now that she was leaving, suddenly City Hall decided that this was a job that was needed for a political friend. He was a man whose name I remember but will not quote, who had no qualifications for social work at all, who was a broken-down former newspaper man. But he was a friend of somebody who was a friend of somebody, and the powers that be in City Hall decided that he was the man who was going to get that job.

Morris: Was the job exempt from any kind of examination?

Sloss: Yes, it was not civil service; the appointment was to be made by the Council members themselves, free of civil service. There was a possibility that we could have gotten for that job somebody who would have been absolutely marvelous, Eva Hance, who afterwards became the Director of Social Planning for the Community Chest--and one of the extraordinary people in this field.

But the pressure started coming from the City Hall: vote for Mr. X. Finally it came to a showdown. The four private agency representatives--the four appointed members--were all unalterably opposed to this appointment. Of the six public representatives, one had the courage to go with us, and that was Miss Josephine Randall, the Director of Recreation--there was another remarkable woman. The other five bowed to the pressure. So we came up with a five to five vote and no appointment! Sloss: Then City Hall really put the screws on. The four private appointees were on staggered terms, one of which was about to expire. So the mayor let it be known that when (I think it was) Miss Henry's term expired she would not be reappointed and no appointment would be made to fill that vacancy until this issue of the executive had been decided. So that, of course, would have created a five to four majority against us.

As it happened, something else came up, too. Just then the war began, and I was asked to go into the OPA, and did. And I got to get off the Council, because you couldn't be a federal employee and a city commissioner simultaneously.

So the good guys were hopelessly defeated, and this man got the job. After struggling around for a few years, the Coordinating Council died. This man was just incapable of giving it any leadership.

Morris: How do you avoid a situation like that?

Sloss: Maybe you get to be a more skillful politician yourself [laughs1.

Morris: Did you learn something from that? Were you wary of such potentiali- ties later?

Sloss: Yes--but not as wary as I should have been later on, when I was on the Public Welfare Commission. But that's another story [laughs].

Morris: You did go back and accept another city appointment in later years?

Sloss: Under a different administration, yes.

California Adoption Committee

Morris: Did you become active with the Children's Home Society and the Adoption Committee because of your parents' interest?

Sloss: No, that was quite independent. Meanwhile I had been on the Community Chest board, on and off, and on their Social Planning Committee all through the war--through my OPA time; so I had always been interested in that. Then I served one spell, again at Dan Koshland's request, on the board of the Jewish Family Service Agency, which I found very interesting, too, because Hyman Kaplan (not the one about whom the book is written, although the author and the real Hyman Kaplan knew each other) was the executive. He was a very outstanding social worker and social work executive. Sloss: One of the things that I learned that amused me was how differently boards work. On the Center board, where Louis Blumenthal was a real personality, there used to be great debates on things. Inciden- tally, one of the things he would see to was that at each board meeting there would be some issues of substance to discuss, so that the board members wouldn't get bored with being on the board. So sharp debate was considered fine.

When I went on the Jewish Family Service Agency board, I found that the tradition was that you sat round very politely in the St. Francis Hotel, and on everything that came up the president said, "And what is your recommendation, Mr. Kaplan?" And then everyone voted "aye," and that was the end of it [laughs].

Once something came up on which there was a slight disagreement, and I said, "Well, why don't we take a vote?" I was looked at as if I had suggested, "Why don't we fight it out with pistols?'' We never took a vote ; we always followed Mr. Kaplan 's recommendation [laughs1. So I didn't find that a very interesting board to stay on.

The statewide adoption agency was different; that was after the war. Phoebe Matthews (whom I mentioned as having been the executive of the Coordinating council), after she got married and became Phoebe Champlain, went on the board of the Children's Home Society.

Morris: From executive to board member?

Sloss: Not of the same agency. She was no longer working, and as a married woman--a volunteer--she became a board member of the Children's Home Society. One day she called me and said she and Dan Koshland wanted to come and see me. They were trying to organize a San Fran- cisco lay committee, or council, for the Children's Home Society, which had never been very strong in San Francisco. It had its main headquarters in Los Angeles and its Northern California headquarters in Oakland, and had not had much support in San Francisco. So they were trying to get something together to strengthen it in San Fran- cisco.

They asked me if I would go on this council for this purpose. I was reluctant because it happened to be a time when I was busy. But they said they wouldn't expect much--you know, the usual thing: it wouldn't take up any time at allyetcetera. One could hardly say no to that team, so I went on it, and gradually found it to be one of the most interesting things I had ever been on because I got plunged into all this controversy about agency adoption versus private adoption.

I found myself more and more engaged in a battle to the death with my old friend Phil Adams, who was the principal attorney engaged Sloss: in private adoption--and when I say my old friend, we were personal friends although I disapproved thoroughly of what he was doing. We debated against each other, barnstorming up and down the state and before legislative committees and whatnot.

Morris : Did your friendship survive?

Sloss: Oh, yes. Well, we don't see each other much any more, but we never had any personal quarrels over it at all--although some of my social worker friends used to be absolutely appalled when I would say that Phil Adams was a friend of mine, and that he was a very engaging guy personally, which he is. They would look at me as though I had said, "I really think Hitler is a very decent kind of a fellow when you get to know him. If [~aughs.] They were as shocked as that.

Morris : Was this a time when the adoption agencies were increasing their professionalism and organization?

Sloss: They were increasing their professionalism, but the big problem-- which really grew out of World War 11--was that the number of children available for adoption had increased enormously, partly because so many servicemen came through California and were in California. The numbers were of a totally different order than before, and there had been only two licensed agencies: the Native Sons and Daughters and the Children's Home Society. After a while the Native Sons and Daughters went out of business because they couldn't finance themselves.

Morris : Is this the Native Sons of the Golden West?

Sloss: Yes, the Native Sons and the Native Daughters of the Golden West; but they had a separate unit, which I think they called the Native Sons and Daughters Adoption Service.

Morris : When I talked recently with Bernice May, who also served on that statewide committee,* she said that at that same time orphanages were beginning to go out of business. Was that before or because of the increase in the number of children available for adoption?

Sloss: No, but I think it's a parallel development. Because of the growth in adoption, plus the increasing use of foster home care, there were very few children left for whom institutional placement was indicated, except for some who were too emotionally disturbed to fit into a home.

*See Bernice Hubbard May, A Native Daughter's Career in Public Affairs, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of ~alifornia,Berkeley, 1976. Sloss: Former orphanages, like Homewood Terrace and Edgewood and the others, have increasingly become treatment centers for emotionally disturbed children.

Morris : You stayed with that adoption committee until it went out of business?

Sloss: I stayed with the Children's Home Society for quite a few years, drifting into being president--it always seemed to happen sooner or later. Then I got to the point where I continued to have a good deal of interest in the adoption field, but I wanted to get off that board.

I've found over the years that I don't like to stay on one board too long. In the first place, I don't think it's good for the agency that the same people should stay on the board forever. Then I find that you get bored (without trying to make a pun), as the same issues come up and the same debates are repeated year after year.

And then much is routine; you get to the point where when somebody says, "NOW we will have the report of the finance committee... Now we will have the report of the public relations committee ...,I1 you just think, "Oh, not again--I've heard all this eighty-seven times.'' So I don't think it's a good idea to stay on the same board too long.

Finally, when the adoption committee was activated the second time and they wanted me to become chairman of it, I made a deal. I said, ''~11right, I'll do that if you will let me quietly drop off the board of the Children's Home Society and not badger me about it." So that's how I got off of that.

Morris : Had the Children's Home Society been involved in getting that statewide committee set up?

Sloss: I think in getting the first committee set up, yes. I'm trying to remember if that had already happened before I got very far into the Children's Home Society.

Morris : I think the committee was started about 1948 or 1949.

Sloss : That would have been just about when I was starting with the Children's Home Society--maybe even before I was a member of the statewide board; certainly before I was president.

Morris: That committee seems to have been a genuine grassroots effort, in contrast to other committees of the time, such as the various citizens' committees appointed by Governor Warren. They worked from the top, as it were, to increase legislative and staff awareness of various social issues. Sloss: It reallywas acitizens' committee. Ithinkitwas oneofthemost useful, because that committee, with the study that it made, was responsible for the legislation that created public adoption agencies-- county adoption agencies. That was what finally made it possible for agency adoption to start making inroads on independent adoption. At the low point the percentage of adoptions in California that went through agencies had dropped to eleven percent.

Morris: The agencies existent, and the people on the committee, felt that this was not in the best interest of the children?

Sloss: Yes, nor in the best interest of the natural mothers--but particularly the children. These were mostly illegitimate children, of course-- not all, but most.

Morris: You said it was an aspect of the moving around during the war?

Sloss : That's when it started. It was perhaps an aspect, generally, of more casual sexual behavior and an increase in the population of California.

Morris: So you really did have a considerable focus on youngsters and family situations in all these activities?

Sloss: I had also gotten to some extent into the other end of the spectrum. I was on the board and ended up as president of a quite interesting agency that existed for a while, called the Chronic Illness Service Center, which was concerned with ascertaining unfilled needs of the chronically ill--which, it turned out, was principally the aged. This was a forerunner of a good deal of the activity on behalf of the aged that now takes place here.

Observations of the San Francisco and Rosenberg Foundations

Morris: You said that your father was a member of the committee that established the San Francisco Foundation.

Sloss: He was one of a group of distinguished leaders of the bar who had been asked to review and approve this plan of a community foundation, from a legal point of view. He had known about it from way back, which I had not.

I had had very little contact with foundations as such. As I say, John May and I were close personal friends; we and our wives saw a great deal of each other--we used to take trips together--so in conversation I'd be finding out about what was happening, but that was later . Morris: In your letter to John, written in 1948,* telling him about the idea of a community trust and that they were looking for an executive, you said that if it might interest him, "just say the word and I'll give Dan a glowing thumbnail sketch of your life and achievements and ask him to talk to you the next time he's there." Can we have that 'glowing thumbnail sketch' of the things about John that made you think he'd be good for this particular spot?

Sloss: The things about John were, first, that I had known him in the OPA and we had become good friends, so I could speak of his qualities with some confidence.

Morris: Had you known each other at Stanford?

Sloss: I think hardly at all. When I met him in the OPA I knew his was a familiar face that I had seen somewhere, but we had not been friends at Stanford.

Next, I knew that John had an excellent personality for community contacts; that he had the sort of manner that would make it possible for him to meet with potential donors--bankers and so forth--and I would think win their confidence. Certainly I felt that he had complete integrity and that he was highly intelligent.

The main thing beyond that was that when the OPA job cane to an end, John had a good deal of difficulty finding himself, because he had only had business experience before his government service, and basically business didn't interest him. He felt--and I know his (then) wife Margarita felt--that they would both be much happier if he were doing something that he thought was of public or social importance, rather than just peddling something and making money at it. They would both be happier eventhough it meant he would earn less money and perhaps live more modestly. So when I wrote about 11 six months ago," that must have meant before he got this job that he then had.

The job that he had finally taken, reluctantly (it required them to move to Seattle, which they didn't want to do, because they loved San ~rancisco)was with the Eureka Williams vacuum cleaner people. I think he was a West Coast representative for that organization. It was the sort of thing that he just didn't like.

*This letter is in the appendix to John May's interview in this series. Sloss: Something else had come up before that I had suggested him for. So the idea in my mind was, when this came up, that this was what he was hoping to get in the first place--something that had some public or social significance, rather than just a business job--and if he weren't too deeply committed because of having moved to Seattle and gone to work for this corporation, he might still be interested. Of course, he was.

Morris : Immediately?

Sloss: I think he immediately responded. He came down quite quickly for an interview. He said at once to go ahead and talk to Mr. Koshland. I talked to Mr. Koshland and told him about John, and Dan asked whether there was anyone else around here who also knew him. I said Ben Duniway, the (now) circuit judge.

Morris : How did he come into the picture?

Sloss: Well, I had known Ben for years; he had been in the OPA, too. That's where he got to know John particularly well. They wouldn't have known each other at Stanford--Ben didn't go to Stanford as an undergraduate; he went to Carleton College and Stanford Law. Ben Duniway had also been very active with me in the Community Chest, in social planning; he had been president of the Family Service Agency.

Morris : Is he a Bay Area man, born and raised?

Sloss: Not born, but lived here all of his adult life. His father was a college professor and college president who travelled around a good deal. He was once president of the University of Wyoming; once president, I think, of Carleton; and then came back to Stanford as a professor of history. I think he (the father) was originally from the West.

Anyway, Ben knew John well and also knew Dan well, because of all these activities they'd been in together. Ben highly recommended John, too, and then it all happened very quickly.

Morris : Did you keep in touch with him in the years when the Foundation was getting going?

Sloss : Oh, sure. As I said, we and our wives were close personal friends during all that time, so I was always seeing a lot of him.

Morris : Did you assist at all in what was a large part of the early activities of the Foundation, i.e., making the acquaintance of the bankers and attorneys in town?

Sloss: No, I didn't get involved in that at all. I had no direct connection Sloss : with the Foundation. Later on there was one professional matter I handled for them--a legal matter.

Morris : Among their early grants were several to assist the Legal Aid Society in expanding its activities.

Sloss : [~au~hinglI had served a brief term on the board of the Legal Aid Society, way back, but was not connected with it at that point any more--except as a dues-paying member and contributor.

Morris : John's interest in doing something of a community service nature seems very modern; this generation of young people seems to have that as a battle cry.

Sloss: It was much less common then, than it has now become.

Morris : In 1963 you went on the Rosenberg board. Had you had any other connections with them before then?

Sloss: Only to the extent that, first, I knew Leslie Ganyard, who was the executive prior to Ruth Chance. I knew her socially--I had met her at various houses of friends. Was she the executive at the time of the first adoption committee grant?

Morris : She must have been, because she and Ruth are all the executives there have been.

Sloss: This was before Ruth's time, probably. Leslie Ganyard at some point came to talk to me in the process that she always went through of investigating applications for grants. I suppose she interviewed me because of my (then) Children's Home Society connection. I think I was one of her sources of information, probably on a grant to the adoption committee, although I would not state that under oath--it was quite a long time ago. At any rate, I certainly knew Leslie Ganyard and knew of the Rosenberg Foundation--had for years, but had no direct connection with it.

Public Welfare Commission

Sloss : The next connection I had with it was when I was on the Public Welfare Commission; that's another story that I haven't told yet.

Morris: You were a member from 1959 though 1962, and the fourth year you were president.

Sloss: It's a four year term--you are appointed for a four-year term. Morris: They moved you right along!

Sloss: The man who by tradition had been the immemorial president went and died. 1 dontt think Z was the first after him; Z thfnk somebody else came in between. I: donft remember just how that happened. Anyway, that was something quite new to me, and when Mayor Christopher asked me me to go on that commission, 1 was quite doubtful at first because I felt this was quite out of my experience and I didn't know how many pressures there might be, or how time-consuming it might be.

After all, these things had all been outside activities for me; I had been practicing law all this time. I had to be careful to avoid something that might become -too time-consuming. Anyway, I was persuaded to try. Don Fazackerly, who had been associated with me in Community Chest activities and social planning, was very close to the mayor and he urged me to take it.

He said, trLook, you owe it to yourself to take a look at this great, big, public part of the program. If you think you know something about child welfare, what do you know if you only know private agencies, which are statistically only a small part of the whole program. tt

Then I thought to myself that it would be kind of fun to see whatever happened years later to this Social Security Act I was working with when I first started.

So anyway, in a weak moment I said I would do it. And I did find it very interesting. Perhaps fortunately for me, this was -not during a period of activist pressure in public welfare; things were very quiet--nobody ever came to the meetings, there were never any demonstrations or protests or confrontations. In fact, I thought people were much too quiet.

One of the things I tried to do--and do it quite quietly--was to get a few liberalizations into the rulings. It had been a very conservative commission, and most of the mayors had wanted it to be. What they wanted the commission to do was to keep everything quiet and spend as little money as you could possibly get away with.

So, while I was on the Public Welfare Commission, it became a grantee of the Rosenberg Foundation. The Public Welfare Commission had a proposal that involved a new system of classifiing family cases; it didn't turn out to be successful.

They were going to classify cases according to the number and severity of the-problems in the particular family, with the idea that it would then be possible to have a much smaller case load for a worker who would be handling more difficult cases, and they could Sloss: assign relatively uncomplicated cases in larger numbers, thus giving better service overall. This required people who would come in and train the staff and set up this whole system.

Morris: Wasntt Community Research Associates the consultant on that? They had already received Rosenberg grants for work in San Mateo County with multi-problem families, as the term was then.

Sloss: Yes.

Morris: So your Commission would have had to approve the proposal and author- ize its submission to Rosenberg?

Sloss: Right. Ruth Chance, whom I had not known before, came to see me for one of her confidential talks about this project. She particularly wanted to know if the Commission was really behind it and if it was sufficiently concerned to see to it that the administration would really make an earnest, diligent effort to put it into operation.

I told her we were. That was when I first met her.

Morris: That was when she was relatively new herself as the executive; she joined the Foundation in late '58.

Sloss: I think this may have been rather late in my Public Welfare tenure, because it may have been while I was president. I can verify it because I made a speech about it--May 24, 1961, I made a speech at a United Community Fund meeting and told them about this new plan.* So thatrs when that was, and that's when I met Ruth Chance.

Morris: You list your political preference as Democratic, and Christopher was a Republic an.

Sloss: Well, if you really want that story--perhaps itrs a little indiscreet. But I don't suppose George Christopher will come and read this manuscript.

Yes, Christopher was a Republican. When he sent for me and asked me to do this--I had known him slightly when he was a supervisor, enough so that we were on first name terms, but not at all intimate-- I said to him, "~eor~e,IVma ~emocrat."

He said, "That doesn't make any difference to me. We have a nonpartisan city administration."

*See Appendix. Slos s : So I said, "Well, okay, but you realize that in state and national politics I expect to be on the Democratic side."

He said that didn't make any difference at all. So I went on the commission, and, as I: say, I found that I was at first the most liberal member of the commission; but I got some good help, particularly when that marvelous woman Jacqueline Smith was appointed to the commission--T guess that was the following year. You probably know her--a black social worker; fine woman.

Morris: Appointed in 1960?

Sloss: I think so; or perhaps before--perhaps a vacancy occurred through a death or resignation. Anyway, she came on pretty soon, and was a tower of strength.

Another one who was really quite willing to go along with slightly more liberal measures was Mrs. Murray, who was the mother of Monsignor Murray of Catholic Social Service. She had some awareness of the human side.

Morris: These were both appointed by George Christopher, too?

Sloss: Mrs. Murray was already there when I came. I don't know whether she was a Christopher appointee originally or not.

Anyway, we were able to get a few liberalizations through. I didn't want to rock the boat; I thought the only way to get it done was quietly.

We got a few things accomplished, and we were just working into what I most wanted to do, which was a review and thorough revamping of the so-called General Assistance Program. This involves the people who don't fit into a federally subsidized category of aid-- they're too young for old age assistance; they're not quite totally disabled enough for disability; they're too old for aid to families with dependent children (as it is now called). So it all comes out of local funds and therefore this is where the county is as penurious as it can possibly get away with.

These General Assistance allowances, which had not been looked at for years, were disgraceful. One of the things I was working toward was to get them reviewed and changed.

In the meanwhile, Mayor Christopher ran for reelection as mayor. That was fine; needless to say, I supported him--not to a large extent, but I gave what was for me a large political donation; I don't do much in political donat ions [laughs1--and thought everything was lovely. Sloss: Then came the statewide campaign, and George Christopher ran for lieutenant governor on the Republican ticket. Meanwhile, by the way, I was working on a state committee for the Pat Brown administration. A Welfare Study Commission had been established, and they roped me into being chairman of the citizen's Advisory Committee to the Welfare Study Commission, which was a state job.

Morris: Were you also a consultant to the State Department of Social Welfare?

Sloss: Oh, yes. That was part of the adoption activity, at the request of Clyde Getz of the Children's Home Society, and Lucile Kennedy of the State Department of Social Welfare. I used to appear before legislative committees on these controversial adoption bills.

I was also a consultant to the State Department of Social Welfare in its effort to do something about the adoption black market--to get a prosecution started against a couple of people in Los Angeles who were particularly flagrant about it--much worse than my friend Phil Adams. I was on the committee that worked with the State Department of Social Welfare on that in trying to interest the Attorney General and the District Attorney in Los Angeles in prosecuting those cases.

Morris: In this kind of instance your legal training would be very valuable, too.

Sloss: It perhaps didn't do any harm. I was able to make some drafts of proposals to be submitted to legislative committees. However, this is a digression. Let's come back to the Public Welfare Commission.

Mr. Christopher was running for lieutenant governor. The next thing I know, I get a communication saying, "urgent everybody must turn up at the meeting tomorrow afternoon on the Christopher for lieutenant governor committee. We've all got to work ...,'I and so on. Again I demonstrated my utter political naivete.

What I should have done is what another friend of mine (whom I will not name) who was in a similar situation did. He was a Christopher appointee on a city commission but was a Democrat. He just quietly threw those things in the wastebasket.

I didn't have that much sense; I thought I had to put myself on record. So I wrote the committee a letter, saying in effect, "Look, when Mayor Christopher appointed me we discussed the fact that I am a Democrat. I consider myself a loyal member of his municipal administration, but in statewide partisan office I am not in a position to support him, particularly as I am also serving on statewide committees under the Democratic administration. So please do not carry my name on this list.I1 Sloss: I never should have done it, because the next thing I know, come January my term expires and I am not reappointed, and I get one of those letters, "Dear Commissioner Sloss: Thank you for all of your service." I found out through the grapevine that at that point George Christopher was extremely bitter about his defeat and had in effect made a little enemies' list. Due to my indiscreet letter I had gotten on the enemies' list [laughs].

Morris: By 1962 we had already begun to have committees of Democrats for Goodwin Knight, and things like that; maybe that's what Mr. Christopher had in mind.

Sloss: I heard afterwards through the grapevine that he said subsequently that he thought that it was a mistake not to reappoint me, and that he regretted it. But at the time he was probably still very emotional about that campaign. From his point of view as a conventional politician, I suppose what I had done was a stab in the back--his own appointee refusing to support him.

Morris: How have you managed your own time so that you can cope with these very interesting and challenging civic things and also keep a law practice going?

Sloss: I have tried never to take on more than one major commitment at one time--like being president of something. I didn't mind being on two or three boards or committees at one time--the sort of thing where you go to one monthly meeting, let us say, and occasionally serve on a subcommittee. But the things where I have the responsibility--for instance, as president I think it my duty to be available to the executive all the time--the general rule was only one major commitment at a time. 3. JOINING THE ROSENBERG FOUNDATION

Fellow Board Members, 1963

Morris: It was in 1963 that you got this letter from Christopher.

Sloss: This was a very fortunate coincidence. The very moment I was asked to go on the Rosenberg board was the moment in which I was out of a job as far as the Public Welfare Commission was concerned [laughs1. Morris: Do you suppose that the Rosenberg board and/or Mrs. Chance had been aware that you were now available?

Sloss: I have no idea. Somebody may have noticed in the papers that Mr. Ben Blumenthal was appointed in my place on the Public Welfare Commission.

Morris: I imagine they were well aware of your activities in youth agencies and children and family things. Who was it that said, "Come and join us"?

Sloss: I got a phone call from Ellie Anderson.

Morris: How does she fit into your family picture? Wasn't she at one point Eleanor Sloss?

Sloss: Yes, but it is a little complicated. Ellie was by birth Eleanor Fleishhacker. The intermarriages among these old German-Jewish families in San Francisco are something appalling--nobody can find his way through this labyrinth unless he's grown up in it.

Ellie Fleishhacker was my second cousin by birth--her mother and my father were first cousins. Then she married Leon Sloss, Jr., who was my first cousin.; so she was my second cousin by birth and my first cousin by marriage. She and her husband were second cousins by birth, too; they were second cousins before they became husband and wife. Anyway, Leon died and she subsequently has had two unfortunate marriages to Anderson and Spilker, both of which ended in divorce. Sloss: After her last marriage broke up she resumed the name of Sloss, which was logical; it's the name of her children, and that had been the real marriage in her life. She is a lovely person.

I remember seeing her at a concert and she said something about, "did we have any objections to her resuming our name?"

I said we were "only honored." Except for one thing, which is that my wife's name is also Eleanor [laughs] and this causes a little confusion sometime~--~~whichEleanor Sloss are you talking about?"

Morris: It sounds like family gatherings over the years have been pretty fascinating, with so many of you involved in so many community activities--prodding each other on to things you felt needed doing.

Sloss: So, anyway, my cousin Eleanor called me on the phone in January, 1963, and said she was president of the Rosenberg Foundation and the nominating committee of the Rosenberg Foundation had asked me to go on the board. As I have mentioned, it was at the moment when I was, in a sense, looking for work, having been bounced off the Welfare Commission [laughs].

I asked her to tell me more about it; I said I, of course, knew about the Rosenberg Foundation. She told me who was on the board, and as it turned out it was the first board I've ever gone on where I already knew everybody; I had had some connection with each one of them. She told me how the board works. I knew Ruth, and she told me about the meeting times and about the policy meeting custom, and so forth.

I said, "Look, this sounds great." I thought it was an honor to be asked to go on such a board, and it came at a moment when I had the time. I knew the people involved and had great respect for all of them. There was no argument against it. So that was that.

Morris: Was Charles Elkus still on the board?

Sloss: No, I replaced him; I was his successor. He had just died. I remember who was on the board. There were two ladies--Ellie Anderson and Caroline Charles; Ben Duniway; Dick Guggenhime; the two Freds-- Fred Merrill and Fred Whitman; Roy Sorenson; Malcolm Watts; and myself.

Ellie was president at that point.

Morris: Was that the first time there had been a woman as president?

Sloss: I don't know.

Morris: Had she just recently taken over as president? Sloss: I don't remember. The president generally serves three years.

Morris : What had you worked on with Mr. Sorenson and Dr. Watts?

Sloss: I had worked with Roy Sorenson on all kinds of things connected with Community Chest--social planning, youth and group work activities-- on committees where, for example, I might be representing the Jewish Center and he the YMCA. He is, I think, the only professional social worker that's ever been on the Rosenberg Foundation board.

Morris : He was the first person with professional youth experience on the board. Did that affect the kind of contribution that he made to the board?

Sloss: Well, there is a difference of opinion. I never felt that it did. I always felt that he was extremely scrupulous in avoiding any improper conflict of interest, and in refusing to participate in anything that directly involved his agency or directly involved anything that he knew he felt so strongly about that it might distort his judgment.

There are others who were on the board who felt that, even though they all recognized that Roy was a man of extraordinary stature, it was not a good precedent to have a professional on the board. This has come up in nominating committee discussions subsequently, when people have been suggested. There are some who feel that it's not a good idea. I did not agree; I thought that if it was a person of sufficient stature and sufficient scrupulousness and character, that it was helpful, because herd have some useful insights.

Morris : Do you remember his contributions to board discussions being from a professional point of view rather than from broader community view- points?

Sloss: He could do both. He could see something from the professional point of view--how there might be an administrative weakness in a proposal, which the rest of us might not notice--but he was a broad-gauged person. He'd written a number of books--not just technical professional books. He wrote a very delightful book called The Art of Board Membership.*

Morris : How about Dr. Malcolm Watts--were there any concerns about him being a person with a possible professional interest in some application? Was he there as a medically knowledgeable person?

*Association Press, New York., 1950. Sloss: Well, we certainly used him for that, and it was extremely helpf'ul. But there was no thought when he resigned that there was any need to get another doctor as such. However, there were times when it was very helpful to have a doctor--times when there was an application in the medical field. We could ask him to look into it, and herd find out.

Some Granting and Financial Policies

Morris: It was before you came on the board, Ruth Chance told me, that by and large Rosenberg stuck to not making medical grants,

Sloss: Perhaps it was true before, but certainly it has been reaffirmedthat in general we prefer to stay out of the strictly medical field. We don't feel that either our board or our staff is sufficiently expert to judge between the good ones and the lemons.

Morris: What is the line over into health care that you do go into?

Sloss: Like all the lines that we draw, it's delightfully fuzzy. It gives us some flexibility. I remember that at one time we had a number of applications having to do with dyslexia. This applicant would be absolutely certain that the thing must be. approached neurologically, and that this kind of a study would do it; another group would be equally certain that it must be approached psychiatrically. Each of them would have some great study--you try our method with a control group of fifteen kids, and so forth.

We finally said we were just not competent to judge whether this is the absolute nonsense that it sounds like, or whether it really has some merit; so let's not get into this area.

Morris: Was there a concern that some projects might actually do some harm to some youngsters?

Sloss: I don't think we would have known enough to know whether that was a risk. We were concerned that it might just be totally wasted--wouldn't demonstrate anything.

Morris: The two Freds who were on the board when you joined both come from the business community.

Sloss: Fred Whitman I had known because he was very active in the formation of the United Crusade, when it gradually supplanted the Community Chest an Francisco Federated Fund was the first technical name). I think he was the first president. Sloss: Fred Merrill I had known on some board or committee--I canFt remember at the moment what it was.

Morris: What skills did they bring to the board?

Sloss: Their greatest usefulness, of course, was on finance--reviewing the investment reports and budget work, and so forth.

Morris: In going over the early annual reports, I was impressed at the number of years in which you had spent more than the income from the investment s.

Sloss: Always. I don't think there's ever been a year in which we didn't, except the year 1972, which was when we stopped dead to take a fresh look at policy. We cut off intake and didn't take in any new applications. But I think every other year since I've been there, we always spent more than our income.

Morris: Is this a big board debate?

Sloss: I would say itFsnever been a subject of dispute; it's the subject of discussion at policy meetings over and over again--what should be our policy? And weFve always come up with the same answer--and that is that up to now we have certainly spent more than our income, but up to now not to the point where we appear to be depleting the fund to the extent that it will be exhausted; so let's go on doing what we're doing.

So long as we find good projects that we want to support, let's do it, even though we're using more than our income, until we get to the point where we think we ought to be worried that maybe the fund will be exhausted in a few years.

But everything's going to be different now. We have been in periods of rising security values, so that the fact that we've drawn on capital has not depleted the total amount of the fund. Of course, that won't be true next year.

Morris: I noticed in the newspapers recently that the Ford Foundation's securities took a double digit drop.

Sloss: A mere trifle of a billion dollars, that's all--from three billion to two [laughs1.

Morris: If there were that percentage arop in the Rosenberg assets, would that require a revision of your policies?

Sloss: It would certainly come up at a policy meeting for discussion, but whether any different conclusions would be reached, I don't know. Of Sloss: course, now under the Tax Reform Act, wetre required to spend a certain amount--either income or percentage of capital. But our policy was always the same, before there was any legal requirement.

Morris: In general, then, regardless of the bank balance, if the board agreed with Ruth Chancets recommendations that projects were valuable, you would go ahead and find them?

Sloss: I suppose it was just that as we went along and Mrs. Chance investigated and presented applications, and some were approved and some were not, we found that the amount spent as we got near the end of the year was in excess of our income, and it didn't greatly worry us.

Mrs. Chance had one very stong conviction, which I think is very sound. She felt it would be very unfair to applicants to have their chances depend on the time of the year in which their application came up. She thought, for instance, it would be wrong in principle to say, "Letts just spend freely until August and then stop. "

[~a~eturned over]

Other Observations on Board Members

Morris: Before we get past it, I have a few more questions on members of the board when you joined it. Was Judge Duniway on the bench in 1963?

Sloss: I think so.

Morris: Was he at juvenile court, by any chance?

Sloss: No. Hets only been on the appellate courts--state and federal. He was first appointed by Governor Brown to the California Court of Appeal, and then appointed to the United States Court of Appeals. He had been extremely active, before he was on the bench, in community activities.

I think I mentioned that he had been president of Family Service Agency; I think chairman of the Social Planning Committee; I don't recall whether or not he was president of the Chest.

Morris: I think he served on a couple of statewide committees, too.

Sloss: Oh, he was very active in the first statewide adoption committee.

Morris: He brought to the board your kind of concern for how the community functioned?

Sloss: I would think so. Morris: Caroline Charles?

Sloss: She has always been an extremely active person with a great many interests. T think she had at that time, or very shortly afterwards, become a trustee of Stanford. She also had a close connection with Mills College. T don't know how long she has been concerned with KQED. She's been on all kinds of things; she's just one of these all-around, very hardworking, volunteer citizen leaders--very able.

There's a couple of others. Mr. Guggenhime is one of my oldest, closest friends from boyhood, and he is now my law partner. He was a Stanford trustee; former president of the Community Chest; the same general background of a lawyer with an active concern for civic problems.

Morris: There was a strong Stanford influence on the board at that time.

Sloss: Yes, and it got more so because Fred Merrill went on the Stanford board, and Ben Duniway was there,too. I think there was one time at which we were worried that if there were an application from Stanford we might be unable to muster a quorum that did not have a conflict of interest [laughs] .

Morris: Did the University of California never protest?

Sloss: Not that T ever heard. Now we have, I think, only one Stanford trustee--Peter Haas, and we have one University of California Regent-- Bill Roth. Ellie Anderson, I believe, was a Mills trustee.

Morris: And Mrs. Luttgens, too.

Sloss: Yes, but that's more recent. I think we've covered the original board members who were there when I joined.

The Board Deals with an Agenda

Morris: What happens when a group of leaders gets together? How do you sort out who's going to lead amongst the leaders, or how you share things out on the board? Thatts such a distinguished group.

Sloss: It's very interesting. One of the things that impressed me en&mously about this board when I went on it was the brilliant analyses of applications that Ruth Chance wrote that we would get in our agenda to study between the Thursday before and the Wednesday of the meeting-- always delivered by Thursday unfailingly. What also impressed me was that the board was thoroughly conscientious and had really read them carefully before the meeting. Sloss: What sometimes used to happen in those days--it happens less often now--was that the president would call for the next item on the agenda, and without any explanation at all somebody would say, "I move approva1,'"r "I move denial," it being assumed that everyone had done his homework and knew what we were talking about. Then the discussion would go on from there; sometimes there would be very little discussion--somebody might just say, '9 think this one's great ;" "I agree that this doesn % look promising."

Ruth would often play the role of the advocate for the applicant in the board meetings. But not always; sometimes she would even recommend denials. Sometimes as she got investigating, she had come to the conclusion that it was not as good as it had seemed. Usually her emotions, at least, were those of an advocate of the applicant.

Morris: What is the size of this agenda that comes to you on a Thursday?

Sloss: A normal one would be eight applications, of which two or three are likely to be what we call renewals--renewals do not take as much time. For example, somebody has applied a year ago for what is expected to be a three-year project. We have said we would give them a grant for the first year and we will expect to give further support if progress up to that point seems to warrant it.

So then they come in for the second year and the board says, "yes, theytre doing fine." Those don't take so long; you already made the policy decision the year before. But, yes, you go over them.

Morris: You get a sense, then, of how the project is coming along.

Sloss: Iwould say a normal agendawould consist of maybe three renewals and five new applications. Nowadays, there's a new procedure which Ruth initiated only four or five years ago, and that is what she calls inquiries.

If something has come in which she is not sure should be simply denied as a matter of policy in the office (and of course hundreds of them are denied in the office--literally hundreds) and yet doesn't want to go to the work of making a full scale investigation and writeup until she has some sense that the whole thing interests the board, she subits them (and Kirke Wilson is now doing the same thing) as inquiries--simply one paragraph on something: is the board interested in having a full investigation of this?

Morris: Does this give you a sense of what new kinds of approaches and topics are coming up?

Sloss: Sure; itts all informative. We also get the list of the applications denied in the office--that's included in the material about every Sloss: three months. This list gives the name of the applicant, the location, and a general capsule description of what itFsall about, Of course, lots of them are obvious: capital improvements--we just dontt do that; contribution to current budget; scholarships; stipend to write a book; and a lot of them are not accepted because they are not in California.

Morris: Do you receive many applications from out of the state?

Sloss: Lots.

Morris: Has this increased in recent years, when therets been more in the way of directories of foundations?

Sloss: Itm sure the total volume has increased; whether the proportion of out of state mail has increased, I don't know. 4. CHALLENGING ISSUES

Impact of Federal Grants and Regulations

Morris: What were the issues in the Bay Area and in California that you remember as particularly challenging, or the ones that caused the board the most discussion?

Sloss: One that was the most difficult and challenging in the first few years was what we, as a small foundation, should do in the face of severe cutbacks in governmental funding. This was as early as 1966; I think by then we were beginning to see it. Governor Reagan was elected in 1966.

Morris: It.was not necessarily cutbacks in federal funds; it was changes in state regulations, too?

Sloss: It was state funds, too; but federal funding began to be cut back about then, too--Johnson began it and then Nixon did more of it. So we were confronted with tightening governmental funding, and this raised a very difficult issue--should the private foundations pull Governor Reagan's chestnuts out of the fire? And can we, even if we want to?

As a matter of policy, we decided that we would not pick up something that had been eligible for federal or state funding, just because it had ceased to be funded. Like all policies, it is applied in a slightly fuzzy manner. All policies of this kind, at least in this Foundation, are subject to exception--which is one of the delights of being a nongovernmental organization.

Morris: What kinds of things lead the board to go outside its own guidelines?

Sloss: Somethingmay just appealtothembecauseit seems alittle farout but awf'ully imaginative. Besides, we are more likely to do something that might not be strictly within policy if it's in the Central Valley--something rural, something for the migrant workers, for the Sloss: chicanos--because that's been a special interest of this Foundation. We might stretch a point if it was in that field.

Morris : Are there differences between the kinds of applications that come from the rural areas and the ones that come from the urban areas? Or different ways to go about things?

Sloss: Those from the rural areas are likely to be less sophisticated in their presentation. But, of course, we get awfully unsophisticated urban ones, too.

One great change that I see over these last ten years is the greater proportion of applicants that are other than old line and establishment social agencies--the things that are being done by youths themselves, or by people who have just gotten together by themselves, many of them quite unsophisticated in the art of grantsmanship.

Morris : Do those take more work by Ruth?

Sloss: They do. They generally take more work by Ruth, or now by Kirke, in presentation and in working with these people and telling them how to frame their request so as to bring it within policy.

They also raise the problem of expenditure responsibility--are you familiar with that wrinkle in the Tax Reform Act? The point is that if the organization to which you make a grant has the status of a publicly-supported charity, you do not have expenditure responsibility. But if it is not a public charity, but is what they would class as in itself a private foundation or a private operating foundation (that 's another term that's in the tax law), then the private foundation that grants money to it is responsible to supervise its expenditure and there could be personal liability of the board members and the staff for misuse of funds.

This means that grants to these rural, informally organized groups involve expenditure responsibility, and therefore involve a great deal more of our staff time. Consequently, there is a necessity to limit the number of grants of the expenditure responsibility type that you make, because of the staff limitations.

Morris : What about the prudence of the board and potential liability?

Sloss: If you exercise expenditure responsibility you're all right. But you have to supervise it; that's it.

Morris : You have to supervise it while the program is actually in operation?

Sloss: Right. The actual expenditure of the funds. Morris: That makes the funding organization almost an operating partner, doesn't it?

Sloss: There are many ways you can do. it. You can, for instance, arrange with the grantee that some other agency will act as fiscal agent-- actually receive the money, be the grantee and disburse it, but only on vouchers and the checks will be signed by the disbursing agency. You can sometimes hire somebody--a bookkeeper or whatnot--as part of the plan.

But in one way or another, with that class of grant you have to see that there is supervision over the spending of the money.

Morris: Were those types of grants appearing as far back as the early sixties?

Sloss: I would say they became more and more apparent as the sixties went on--at least more and more apparent to me just as an individual; I don't know how others would feel.

I began to be particularly aware of that at the period when we began to have rebellious youth, the hippies in the Haight-Ashbury, demonstrations in Berkeley, and that sort of thing.

Morris: Is there any connection between these increasing at the time that federal and state finding were decreasing?

Sloss: It is an unfortunate coincidence because I think probably we would have found life a little simpler if we had been able to say that everything good of a more or less conventional nature is going to be taken care of by public funding, so we can look for the way-out things. But the more or less conventional things were having trouble, too, because of cutbacks.

co ate of Interview: 11 October 19741

1972 Guidelines Review: Narrower Focus for Greater Impact

Sloss: I went through my Rosenberg file in preparation for our meeting this morning and came across this memo from Ruth: a preliminary evaluation of our 1972 guidelines, which I think relates to our discussion.

We got into that review of the Foundation's original policies partly because of the great increase in applications over the years.

Morris: Ruth has described some of this in her interview. Morris: It would be valuable to the series to include one of her memos as a supporting document; I understand that her writing is as well- organized as a legal brief. With her legaik training, did she finction at all as an attorney for the Foundation?

Sloss: The Foundation didn't tihen have a paid attorney; it scrounged legal services from board members who happened to be lawyers, as a great number of other agencies do, too! This memorandum of Ruth's was given to the board for a policy discussion for the beginning of this year. It's quite an interesting documeht, but it's really hers. You will have to ask her about using it.*

Morris: I will. Did I understand her correctly when she said that you had known her prior to both of you join&@ the Foundation--when she was on the State Social Welfare Board and you were discussing some measures before them?

Sloss: I may have met her when she was on the State Social Welfare Board; I'm not sure. If so, it was perhaps that we were both present at some big conference or meeting. My first specific recollection of her is that incident I told you of, when she came to see me in my office when I was on the Public Welfare Commission to check on that application of the Public Welfare Commission for the CRA [Community Research ~ssociates]project.

Morris: Last time, we were talking about the major issues when you joined the Rosenberg Foundation, and how the board was dealing with those major issues then, in the early sixties.

Sloss: I don't think of this particularly in terms of issues. What would normally come up, except for the policy discussion meeting which was generally only once a year, would center around particular applications. The reactions were very largely individual, and there would be all kinds of reasons for which somebody might be enthusiastic about a particular application or be skeptical or dubious about it, which might have to do with any number of factors--whether it seemed gr~mlsihg,-whether&tcsbemed likemy to succeed~twhetherit seemed too conventional, too much something that even if it succeeded wouldn't demonstrate anything new; or whether it seemed that even if it did succeed there were no possibilities of spread; or whether it just seemed to expensive for what was sought to be accomplished-- wasteful, perhaps.

*fis. Chance agreed. See appendix to her interview. Morris: Were there rules of thumb as to a balance in the kinds of projects, so that roughly the same amount of money would be put into this kind of an area and another area?

Sloss: No, there never were any rules of thumb--assuming that it was in the general field of children and youth in California. There never was, so far as I knew, any thought that so much would go to education, and so much to health, and so much to traditional child welfare, and so much to something else; or that so much would go to public agencies and so much to private agencies.

There was a sort of an informal feeling that if,for instance, we had given money to a particular type of thing on one or two occasions, then if more came along that were just more of the same, we would say no--we had done enough of that. If the first two don't demonstrate anything of value, then three, four, or six probably won't, either.

For instance, take something like alternative schools. We'd have a couple of them and say that was enough on alternative schools. Recently we've done that on child abuse, one of our major fields under the new policy. We have funded one or two things, and now there are a lot more that have come in, but we've said we're not going to do any more in this field until we see what happens to the ones we've already funded--at least until then.

Morris: How did you happen to select child abuse?

Sloss: This is an outgrowth of the general policy reconsideration that took place in 1972, which in turn was forced on us by the uncontrollable work load that piled up in the office--both because of the tremendous increase in the number of applications and because of the additional administrative requirements of the Tax Reform Act, like exercising expenditure responsibility over some grants. Undergoing repeated audits is terribly time consuming, having these people coming in and going over your papers and asking for more and more and more. There was also the necessity to clear a lot of things with legal counsel to make sure that they were all right within the Tax Reform Act.

All these administrative burdens led to the point where obviously Ruth was just swamped and harried beyond endurance. That was why it was finally decided to cut off intake, except for renewals and projects already started, and stop and consider where we were going.

During that year in which the meetings were practically all devoted to policy discussion, one of the ideas that kept coming up-- actually, pressed by Dr. Watts, who had strong feelings on this--was that if we were going to continue to be significant, we ought to make a smaller number of grants, but grants in larger amounts and perhaps Sloss: continuing for a longer duration than the traditional "not more than three years."

If something really important came along, instead of saying, "Well, we might give $25,000 a year for three years as a maximum, I' we might consider giving $150,000 a year for perhaps five years, or something like that. This was finally decided: that we ought to put some of our money into a small number of larger grants that we would invite--that they would not necessarily be the result of an application from the prospective grantee.

Then, when it was decided that we wanted to do some things of that sort, the question was how do we decide; how do we find them? What we then concluded was that the best place to start was with things that we knew something about because we had already made smaller grants to the particular grantees and were aware of the problem.

So the first group of large-scale grants were really existing projects that Ruth suggested as being worth considering for larger grants. That included the Child Abuse Coordinating Project, which grew out of some smaller contacts we'd had with these same people; the statewide Friends Outside one--we had given several grants to the original Santa Clara County organization; SPEAK [sunset-parkside Education and Action ~ommittee],the one on education in the public schools, which was again something we had done something for on a smaller scale; Pacific Oaks. All these grew out of prior contacts with these grantees.

Morris: In selecting these, did you ask Ruth to go back through the histories of the earlier grants to see what had been left undone?

Sloss : I don't remember whether we asked her to, or whether just in the course of discussion she said that there were some things that she thought she could identify.

Morris: That reminds me--I have wondered what happens to the findings of some of these projects as they collect over the years.

Sloss: Of course, this is another great problem I would like to comment on." But I don't want to leave this other thing incomplete or misleading.

The final decision, as you know, was that we would make an experiment with this business of invited larger scale grants. But

*Mr. Sloss picks up this question on p. 52. Sloss: wealso decided--IthinktoDr.Watts1regret--thatwedidn1twant to go all the way and say, "~enceforthwe will only give money to applicants whom we invite to apply."

In other words, we didn't want to cut off altogether the avenue of application to people who wanted to apply. We didn't want to for two reasons. One was that we felt that traditionally this was one of the things this Foundation stands for--that it had an open door; that anyone could come into the office or write and at least get a sympathetic hearing, if nothing more. We didn't want to abandon that altogether. The other reason was that we were very aware of the fact that the applications are the means of -our continuing education; we learn what is going on because of what people come and ask us for, and we didn't want to cut ourselves off--both board and staff--from that extremely useful source of information.

So that was why we finally compromised with this policy decision and policy statement, in which we said that some of our money would be devoted to invited applications, but that we would also entertain applications within the two narrow categories that we tried to frame.

Morris: Did you make that a firm decision? Or did you make it on a five- year basis or something like that, subject to review?

Sloss: We made it subject to review; this was, oh yes, always experimental. I would say if there is any rule about any policy decision of the Rosenberg Foundation it is that it is neither permanent nor literally true. That is, it's always flexible.

Ruth came in, one time last year after we had adopted this policy, with an application which you could not--no matter how much you tried--twist either criterion A or criterion B to fit; you couldn't say it was early childhood, and you couldn't say it was youth participation or a problem involving adolescents and young adults (however that one is worded). But it was just so doggone good that we wanted to do it; so we did it anyway. I've forgotten now which one it was.

Evaluating Applicants and Applications

Morris: Are there any benchmarks for this kind of creative sport?

Sloss : I don't think so. It's subjective, you know. It depends in the first place on whether the executive gets excited about it, and then whether she or (now) he can or does communicate this sense of excitement to the board. Morris : Can you think back as to whether these are the nature of the people presenting them, or is it something about the design?

Sloss: It is very often the people. A great many of our grants are made because of great confidence in the people. This isn't necessarily stated, but I think it's very often true. There is a feeling that if anybody can prove that this thing is of value, it's so-and-so; let's give him a chance to do it.

Morris : Based on the Foundation's previous experience with this particular individual?

Sloss: Not exclusively. It could be his general reputation. And, of course, by the time an application comes to the board, the executive has generally had long conferences with the people involved and gotten to know them personally.

Morris : Do you ever get any feedback at the board level about how the grantees feel about this process of working with the director?

Sloss: Oh, just in general. For instance, from all things that were said and written at the time of Ruth's retirement, we know that she is not only enormously admired, but I think loved, for her sympathy and her understanding and her willingness to talk and to listen and to give guidance.

Morris : Youth participation is now a guideline, but those kinds of projects with the young people coming in with their proposals goes back quite a ways, doesn't it?

Sloss: Oh, yes. We had quite a number of them that we thought were successful, but we thought there needed to be more of this sort of thing. It was one of the fields the board decided it would look with favor on.

I may say that I don't think this attempt to limit the number of uninvited applications by devising these two guidelines has been very successful, because anybody can so word a project that there is at least a plausible case for saying that it falls within one of the guidelines. Then you have to look at it awfully closely if you're going to say it doesn't. I don't think it has saved nearly as much office time as we hoped that it would--to say nothing of the fact that we have blatantly violated our own rules a couple of times, and do not intend to deny ourselves that power, either! [~aughs]

Morris : that's an interesting comment on how people go about making applications to foundations.

Sloss: Oh, well, as you know, grantsmanship has become an art now. There are people who consider themselves very skilled at it. Morris : Can you identify the extent of that quality in a grant when you read the proposal?

Sloss: Oh, of course, you can tell by looking over the proposals whether they are done by people with some sophistication in this field. Many times they are not. Some of these proposals that we get in the agenda are quite naively written in the first place, and wouldn't make much sense if the executive didn't learn a lot more and then restate it.

Some of the sophistdcated ones are written in such abominable sociological jargon that you can't understand them even when the executive has paraphrased them into very good English.

Morris : Does that produce any response from the board?

Sloss: Yes. Sometimes a quite definite response. Sometimes somebody will say, "If these people can't make what they're trying to do clear to us, I don't think I'm interested in financing it."

Morris : Is it dropped then? Or do you then send Ruth back to do further translation?

Sloss : Ordinarily it would be just denied--turned down. Now, sometimes there is quite a debate on something and there will be the kind of a question that could be resolved by further information. Sometimes a particular application will be put over to a subsequent meeting and the executive will be asked to see if she or (now) he can find out more about this particular thing.

Sometimes the executive is given a good deal of discretion to agree on further conditions with the applicant, or even to negotiate about the amount (because sometimes the amounts are quite flexible)-- to ask the applicant, "Do you think you could do this part of the job with so much money?"

Morris : Is this the kind of a question that the board will ask-: is their budget too big?

Slos s : Sometimes the board raises it--sometimes the board thinks this is too much money for this sort of thing; sometimes the executive will raise it. Or sometimes it will be that we think that we should only do some component of the total project. It is then a matter of working out with the applicant how much money represents the price of that component.

Morris : In terms of sharing funding with the parent organization or with other foundations? Sloss: We might be sharing funding with anybody, or it might be not doing it at all. For instance, we had one recently from the Chinese Cultural Center. They had three different kinds of programs they wanted to start. We were interested in two of them and not in the third. So it might be that they would raise the money for the third from somebody else; or they might just decide not to do it.

Minority and Youth Grantees

Morris: You talked about not having any rules of thumb about how much money would go into categories. What about any discussions or balance between requests from rural communities and urban communities?

Sloss: I would say only this: there are far fewer appealing applications from the rural areas. The relatively few that there are are viewed with particular sympathy, because they are from rural areas. But there aren't enough of them so that there would ever be any problem about giving so much to the country that there's nothing left for the city.

Morris: Has this changed over the years since you've been on the board?

Sloss: Idon'tthink so. I think this has always been true. There's always been particular interest in the rural ones, but there have not been a great many of them.

Morris: In reading over the annual reports, it sounded like there were a number of grants in the Valley in the Mexican-American community that became sort of controversial.

Sloss: That's right. There were some that became controversial because they were at the time of Mr. Chavez's activities in organizing the farm workers in the Valley. We, of course, did not and would not give any money to support a strike as such--that's not our job. But we did make some grants that were specifically for programs to help the children of the striking workers, that could be interpreted by anyone with hostile feelings as an indirect support of the strike.

We concluded that we didn't care about that. If it was a proper child welfare project within our purposes to meet the needs of deprived children, we didn't care if some people felt it had an overtone of politics or social strife. I think this board has been quite courageous in that way always. It hasn't run away from the possibility of criticism.

Morris: Have individual board members, or the board as a whole, gotten any Morris : personal challenges for grants that are considered controversial by some sections of the community?

Sloss: There have been some speeches in the legislature, I know, and I think there have been some things in country newspapers. I've never gotten an abusive letter [laughs] or telephone call.

Morris : There were challenges in the state legislature?

Sloss: Yes.

Morris: How did the board deal with such incidents?

Sloss: Noted. [~aughs]"NOW let's go back to work."

Morris : I made a rough outline of areas which Ruth cautioned me did not anywhere near cover all the work of the Foundation, but they just struck me as areas in which the Foundation had a continuous interest in funding different kinds of things. After the Mexican-American community projects ran their course there were a number of grants to black minority groups in the cities.

Sloss: Oh, yes, when this became very much the important issue.

Morris : Was the board interested in expanding what was possible under federal grants, or were they working in areas where the federal government was not making grants?

Sloss: The usual policy has been to try to work in areas that were not yet accepted for public funding--in other words, to be on the frontier, with new things, and not just to be the matching money for, let's say, a federal grant. But sometimes we would take a component of something that was otherwise federally funded, if this particular component was not eligible for federal funds.

The general feeling has been that if something is so recognized as a public responsibility that public funding is available, or ought to be available, then that's not our job. Our job is to try to demonstrate something new that has not yet won general acceptance.

Morris : Was this the board's thinking in supporting projects as early as sixty-four and -five, in which there were young men as leaders? I'm thinking of some of the projects over in Richmond and Youth for Service here in San Francisco.

Sloss: Yes, Youth for Service goes back quite a long while, and so does Red Stephenson's Neighborhood House in Richmond. But, you see, that sort of thing is in one way conventional. Sloss: I know in my own experience that when I first came on the board I thought I was pretty knowledgable about social agencies, public and private, having kicked around with a good many of them, and having been involved so long in social planning. As applications came along I began to think, ''well, yes." They came from standard agencies sometimes--YMCA's, universities like Stanford--and it all seemed like familiar territory to me. Even though things like Neighborhood House or Youth for Service were novel in some ways, they were still within the familiar pattern of how a social agency starts and gets going.

New Organizational Models berge

Sloss: Then I would say it was in about 1965 or 1966, perhaps, that I realized that something new was happening that I was not familiar with. Applications were coming from people who did not have the credentials of being an organization with the typical articles of incorporation and bylaws, a fine board of directors of leading citizens whose names would all have been recognized in the society page, and a typical executive who probably had a masters in social work from Columbia.

All of a sudden things quite different were coming. Things were coming out of the Haight-Ashbury; these hippies, that all the respectable people thought were bad or worse, were setting up programs of their own that really were helping people where the traditional agencies couldn't get through to them at all. They weren't operating by the standard criteria of what constitutes a well-run agency at all; but they were getting things done that none of the others did.

That's when I became aware of the fact that this Foundation, I (and no doubt others) thought, was doing something extremely important in the way of giving people with unconventional approaches, and not the standard credentials, a chance to get something done. Probably, in many cases, they were the only ones who had a chance of getting them done. I began to find that aspect of it fascinating, and then it expanded more widely--beyond the Haight-Ashbury to some things being done for the people in the communes.

One of the crazy ones we did I think probably gave Ruth more gray hairs than anything ever had. There was some young, very hip doctor who wanted to go into the communes because he was very worried about babies being born there and children who were not getting any kind of medical care or supervision. The only way he could get in was to be as wild-eyed as these people, and to paint Sloss: his truck a violent psychedelic pattern. It was a mobile medical [laughs1 apparatus. Then something went wrong. He was a very interesting but difficult young man. At some point he and the truck disappeared.

For a long time we never knew what had happened--whether he had absconded with the truck--but I think the truck finally turned up somewhere. I don't remember whether he had taken it to India or where--anyway, it was very wild.

Morris: Ruth kept trying to keep in touch with him?

Sloss: Oh, yes, and was terribly worried about the truck [laughs] that we had paid for.

Morris: That reminds me of the forties, when the mental health clinics were becoming established. The state kept trying to have mobile units that never seemed to work when they were part of the state apparatus. It's interesting that the idea crops up again in a very far out connection.

Sloss: What made this valuable was not the fact that it was mobile, but the fact that this young doctor talked the language and wore the uniform of the counterculture--of the rebels--so he made himself acceptable to them.

Morris: Did he come to the Foundation himself, or did he have some kind of an organization?

Sloss: Oh, there has to be an organization of some sort. It either has to have its letter from the Internal Revenue Service stating that it's tax exempt or be in the process of getting it. There has to be an organization, but it can be a pretty casual one.

That's why I say it's an educational experience to be on this board. In my child welfare activities-- adoption agencies and the adoption committee and all that--this was all according to standard child welfare practices. Of course, if there was an illegitimate child, the best thing that could be done for it was to get it adopted. So you had to be running around recruiting adopting homes and making sure that the placement procedure was as sound as it could be. These were all articles of faith to me.

All of a sudden, a couple of years ago, along comes Ruth with an organization in Los Angeles, a group of single parents--unmarried women with children. They find they are not getting any helpful suggestions at all from what you might call the establishment child welfare people, who start with the hypothesis that they ought to be giving up their babies anyway, or getting married. They have no intention of doing either, so they're forming their own organization, Sloss: and they dream up some acronym so that it's called MAMA.

Morris: Does the word come first, and then they think up the name of the organization to fit the acronym?

Sloss: Oh, sure, sure. One of the things I was chairman of once--which, incidentally, was funded by the Columbia Foundation--was an effort to stimulate the recruitment of adoptive homes in the minority groups. When we had to select a name for this thing, we thought first of the word MARCH, and then came up with Minority Adoptive Recruitment of Children's Homes. But nobody would have said that if we weren't trying to fit it to MARCH [laughs].

MAMA is one of these things that ten years ago I would have said was ridiculous--where's the responsible board of directors? Where's the highly professional staff? Well, it's anything but ridiculous, and we made a grant to it.

Morris: How does the board deal with this? The board has come from fairly traditional kinds of backgrounds. Does it take some discussion to change, for example, from the idea that an illegitimate child should be put out for adoption to considering that the mother should keep the kid?

Sloss: No, I would say generally that in Ruth's writeup of these things she would give the background. She would say, "~raditionallythe agencies have done this, this, and this. However, we are now learning that there are a great many people for whom these services do not fill the need, and this is an attempt to approach it in a different way." And all this is explained. 5. RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY

Considerations Regarding New Board Members

Sloss: By and large this has been anything but a hide-bound board. They are interested in new things. And, of course, some of our newer members are very liberal. Bill Roth always amazes me, because nobody could come from more of a background of wealth, position, and privilege than he does. But I think he's as liberal as anyone on the board.

Morris: Going through the chronology, it looks to me as though in 1968-69 there were three new board members, which is a speedier turnover than often--Bill Roth, Peter Haas and Leslie Luttgens came on within about a one-year period. Prior to that it had been, oh, one every two years--Mr. Sorenson in '51, Mr. Fuller in '54, Mr. Whitman in '55, Robert DiGiorgio in '57, and Malcolm Watts a couple of years after that; then you came in in '63. So it had been a very gentle sort of turnover.

I wondered if having three new people on the board within the space of a year made any particular shift in the way the board looked at things or handled its discussions?

Sloss: I don't think of any marked change occurring at that time. I'm trying to remember why there were so many new members. Fred Whitman got sick and had to drop off at about that time; I think Dick Guggenhime had become the president of the Stanford board, and he just plain didn't have time for any other outside activities; and the third vacancy may have been Roy Sorenson's death. Anyway, no, I don't recall any abrupt change.

I would say one great advantage was that it somewhat reduced the average age [laughs 1. Bill Roth, as I say, is very liberal in his approach to anything. Peter Haas perhaps leans more toward a management orientation, but also generally from a background of great public spirit. Morris: He had had foundation experience before?

Sloss: With all of the funds and foundations in the Levi Strauss group. There are several funds--Haas, Stern, and whatnot.

Leslie, of course, is very capable. It seems to me that from the time I went on, you might say that while some were more con- servatively-oriented and some more liberally-oriented, there has never been any great cleavage. There has never been a liberal block and a conservative block on the board.

Among individual applications, yes, you might, taking today's board, be more likely to find Jing Lyman and Bill Roth and Herman Gallegos more favorably impressed by something that Ben Duniway or I might view with more skepticism.

Morris: When there were vacancies within a year, did the board set up a committee to recruit?

Sloss: There is always a nominating committee, constantly. Each year three terms on the board expire, and each year officers are elected.

The nominating committee is a standing committee appointed each year by the president. Its duty is to suggest candidates for the places on the board, which, of course, can be the reelection of an incumbent, but need not be. It also selects officers and, when a vacancy occurs, it suggests somebody for the vacancy.

Morris: What kind of criteria do they have?

Sloss: We've just been working on a vacancy right now--the one caused by Caroline Charles's resignation. That had not been filled. The criteria that the nominating committee was given included the fact that we wanted to have another minority person--the only one we had so far was Herman Gallegos. We wanted somebody, therefore, by preference either from the black or from the oriental community. And we wanted somebody at least moderately young--that is, not another old duffer of sixty-five, you know, like me.

But we also agreed that we didn't want 'youth representation' in the sense of finding some eighteen-year-old student who would speak for young people. We felt that we wanted people who had demonstrated some capacity to be useful in this sort of a job, and also people who, unlike most people of student age, could reasonably be expected to be staying around in this area for some time. Morris: That's an interesting debate, as to whether a board of any kind has to reflect or represent various constituencies.

Sloss: We have concluded that this board has never been so constituted, and we don't think that it should be. There is nobody that has a 'right to be represented' on this board, but we do want to have access to different points of view. In other words, we're very eager to have the racial minorities present, not because we think those groups are entitled .to be represented, but because we want to have the benefit of the understanding that a member of those groups would have.

As it turned out, we're ending up with a black in that spot. We talked about several Asians, but the man who has actually just been elected is Norvel Smith." This hasn't been publicly announced yet, by the way, but it will be shortly. He has accepted. We still would like to get an Oriental some time.

Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

Morris: In considering who would be the person to nominate, or when some of these controversial kinds of issues come up, do board members seek advice informally, or contact other friends and acquaintances on the various aspects--

Sloss: Not as a regular practice. There have been times in the past, when there was something that had a medical slant to it, that we would ask Malcolm Watts to find out something about what the medical authorities thought of this, and whether this man had standing or if the thing made sense from the professional point of view. He would then do that.

But the board members do not ordinarily go out and make any investigations on their own, and we try very, very hard--usually successfully, but not always--to stave off any attempt to lobby the board members. Sometimes I get a letter--I had one not long ago from the executive of an agency.

*Dr. Smith was the coordinator of the Ford-funded Oakland Interagency Project in the 1960s; later a top administrator, Peralta Community College District; in 1975, associate vice-chancellor for student affairs, University of California, Berkeley. Ed. Sloss: He said, "We're considering putting in an application to the Rosenberg Foundation, and I know that you're on the board. Would it be permissible--would it be helpful, would it be in order--if I came to discuss it with you?"

I wrote back saying, "very frankly, I would prefer if you didn't. We try very hard to channel all applications strictly through the office. On those that are brought up for full consideration, the board members are given a very thorough analysis and they are very fully considered. But we prefer not to have individual contacts with board members outside the meetings."

This has been accepted, almost every time. I only remember one time when I was really lobbied, to the point of embarrassment, by a lady who happened to be a close personal friend of ours, and very, very wound up in a particular project . It was to the point of, "I will telephone you the minute the meeting is over, or you telephone me. 'I

Since this was somebody we saw for dinner every couple of weeks, it was very awkward. And it happened to be a very controversial one, that I think only went through by one vote.

I learned something from that experience, thanks to Roy Sorenson. Afterwards, we were talking once about what should be the practice of the board members as to disqualifying themselves when there was a conflict of interest. For instance, if something came up that involved StanforCUniversity, and we had four Stanford trustees, as we did on occasion, should they all automatically decline to vote?

Roy Sorenson expressed, I think, a very interesting point of view. He said, "We are supposed to be, and I hope we are, a board composed of people of such quality that they should be depended upon not to act if their judgment is warped. This would not be so just because you're on the board of the applicant, if it's some project that doesn't mean anything to you personally, or that you're not involved in. I see no reason why somebody need disqualify himself just on that account.

'IBut if, without necessarily having any official connection at all, you realize that you are not unbiased about it--that your feelings, your emotions, are involved, maybe just because it's a close friend," he said to me, 'Ias I think you were in that particular matter--that's when I think it would be proper to disqualify yourself."

I learned something. I realized that I should have declined to vote in that matter.

Morris: Do board members frequently decline to vote? Sloss: Rarely. Sometimes something comes up that someone really is deeply involved in, and they will say, "I will not participate in this discussion or vote.'' I remember once when we were thinking of reactivating the adoption committee, and that came up in a preliminary way.

I said, "Look, this is something I 'm very much involved in and I will take no part; I will leave the room if you think I should."

The attitude of the board was, ''we would be very grateful if you would remain to answer questions and help us with information about this. Then, if you feel you should not participate in the discussion of the merits or in the vote, fine."

Feedback from the Community

Morris: The people on the board are there because of their wide acquaintance and involvement in community activities. How much feedback of information is there from the other activities that people are involved in--just on what the state of the art is, or the state of the research?

Sloss: There is a good deal. In the early days, when most of the applications came from what you might call the traditional agencies, and most of the people on the board got there because they had had a lot of contact with the agencies and had been on boards and knew the executives, there was a lot. Now many of the applications do not come from the traditional agencies.

It seems to me that nevertheless there is a good deal of feedback. Nowadays, the people who know what's going on are likely to be the younger and newer members--people like Jing Lyman, who is extremely active in many things; Herman Gallegos; Leslie Luttgens, who of course has a vast fund of knowledge because she's been president of UBAC.

Morris: It's an interesting comment you made in a number of connections, that the new kinds of projects and proposals are feeding back information that is, in turn, educating the board. I wonder if you've observed in any sense that these alternative service, youth- led projects have had an impact on the more traditional agencies? Are you seeing any kind of a change in that over the years?

Sloss: Well, I think so. I think there must be, in some cases, at least. But I really don't know enough of this at first hand, because I'm not on any agency boards any more, you see; I'm not seeing it from the other side as clearly. Morris: I was wondering if the types of proposals of the family service type of agencies, or the traditional Scouts type of youth organization, are changing?

Sloss: Oh, yes. We're getting, right now, some proposals from traditional old line agencies that are very progressive and novel in their approach. Oh, yes; the traditional agencies are certainly feeling the impact of this.

Morris: According to my research, it's been close to ten years that the counterculture agencies and alternative services have been being funded and functioning. Are there any clues, from where you sit on the board, as to whether they're here to stay, or what they may be indicating in the way that communities will function?

Sloss: I certainly think they're here to stay, not in the sense that any one of these agencies, necessarily, is here to stay. Perhaps it's just as well if they're not, because if they stay too long they'll become old line agencies ! [Laughs] There will be a new crop.

And, certainly, I believe and hope that the practice of having new indigenous groups spring up and get funding is here to stay. It had better be. Those of us who are old line, traditional, solid citizen board members--we can't do this job alone; we're not doing it, unless we get help from other people in these times.

Morris: Because of the nature of the problems, or because of the approach of the more traditional--?

Sloss: I would say for two or three reasons. In the first place, we don't know enough about the problems, because they come out of conditions that are too far from what people like us have experienced to know much about. In the second place, we are living in times in which people who experience problems and want to do something about them are not in the least interested in having something handed down to them, as an act of grace--her ladyship going around bringing broth to the poor cottagers; this is not the way it's going to work any more [laughs1.

Of course, it's unfair to suggest that that's only true in the last ten years. That 'Lady ~ountiful'is supposed to have gone out long ago. But even so, even the agencies, which haven't represented Lady Bountiful, as such, for many years, became too high-powered Maybe they weren't reacting solely out of the experience of the 'lady of the manor,' but they were reacting, perhaps, too much out of what they were taught in the school of social work, which may be what Jane Addams believed. That was great, but it is no longer Jane Addams' time.

Morris: That poses a number of questions, and I don't know which one to ask first. Grant Results and Foundation Impact

Sloss: We've ~tillgotonehanging~thatIwaswillingto answerbutthat1 deferred. Maybe you want to go back to that for a minute. That was, in effect, how do we find out how something turned out?:( This is one of the perennial problems. Of course, a report is always expected and demanded at the end of any project. Some projects have a specific evaluation component built in, sometimes an evaluation by an outside agency. So these come up in the file, but the board doesn't actually see or read all these reports.

Every once in a while, particularly when we have a policy ~scussion,somebody gets excited about this and says, "we ought to have some mechanism by which we can find out how something turned out--whether it really was of value--and not only at the time of the final report at the close of this project. We ought to have a way of finding out five years later--has this spread; has it been imitated by anybody else? There ought to be a way to do it."

This is always discussed with great earnestness, and everyone agrees there ought to be a way to do it, and everybody has always said, "Ruth, don't you think you could pick out a few every once in a while and bring them to a meeting so we can talk about them?"

She said, "yes," but there's never time. The executive doesn't have time to do that, and we don't have time at a meeting to do it either. So this is one of the things that we've never solved; there isn't any adequate way, yet.

Morris: I was thinking of it from the grantee end, too--the young organizations struggling to figure out what they're going to do about this or that problem. I would suspect that back in the files, in the reports of some of the studies or the early demonstration projects, there might be very useful information. Either this has been tried and it didn't work, or this has been tried and we should therefore try something else.

Sloss: There's one way in which, indirectly, this does happen. Let's say something has been tried and it's been very successful. Then some other group, or perhaps the same group will come back, and say, "AS a result of such and such a project, such and such has been done; now we would like to try under these circumstances, or with this variant. "

In that way you learn that the influence of something has spread; you learn from new applications.

Morris: From people who have been through this prior experience? Sloss : Or who have learned about it. So in that way you learn. Of course, if something is an utter flop--if it just falls flat on its face-- than you never hear of it again; perhaps it's just as well.

You see, we've never been too worried about having some fall flat on their faces, because we've always thought that we should be somewhat venturesome. Sometimes if something just looks way out enough, it'll just catch the fancy of the board. One that looked crazy--I don't know if any great good has come of it, but we got yery excited about it--involved a bunch of underachieving black kids of, maybe, junior high level--intelligent, you know; not retarded. Nobody could get them interested in anything, and they looked as if they were headed for the regular delinquency pattern. Somebody had an absolutely brilliant idea.

This was a man who owned airplanes and had a flying school. He got the idea of announcing that a certain number of boys would be selected for the privilege of a training course in everything you have to know in order to fly--which would include some actual flying experience; not solo, but up there with your hands on the controls. However, these kids would have to understand that you can't fly a plane unless you can read maps; unless you can write reports; unless you can understand all the directions; and that you can't navigate unless you understand a good deal of basic mathematics. And these kids' grades went shooting up. Furthermore, you see, to be selected to fly gave them great status in their own community.

It sounded like a crazy thing, but we flmded it. I think it was very good. I don't know if it still exi;sCs or not.

Morris: Was that part of the cluster of projects that kept growing over there in Richmond?

Sloss : I don' t remember. It may be Richmond; I wolUdn 't be sure.

Morris: It had one spinoff: it was used as the plotline for an episode in the television series,"~oom222," that had a black history teacher as its central character. It was a very moving television program; somebody may have picked it up from this project.

Sloss: We had an even crazier one just recently that involved a racing car. But that one was too far out; the board wouldn't byy it. It ended up that the whole thing was just a way to enable this guy to raise funds to go around and race his autoinobile [laughs].

Morris : With these nonprofessional kinds of new agencies, what happens to them when the grant flmds run out? As you say, most of the grants that Rosenberg andotke=s make are maybe three years funding at the most. If a bunch of people with very little professional experience puts together something, what do they do after that? Sloss: The answers are very varied, but it is always the hope--and the board will be rather doubtful if this is not there--that the proposal will include something like: "~nteresthas been expressed that, if this thing is made to work it can be gotten into the school district budget," or that the agency will be admitted into UBAC or the corresponding central funding authority, or something. There is generally hope that if it works in one way or another, it will be picked up.

How often it does get picked up and how often it doesn't, I don't know. Again, that's one problem--the things don't uniformly come back to us afterwards, you see. So a lot of these things we receive; we vote on; we hear about when it comes up for renewal, perhaps, in the second or third year; we may hear of it when some offshoot comes before us; or we may hear on the outside, as one does every once in a while, if something goes on that was an outgrowth of something funded by the Rosenberg Foundation; or we may never know at all--we as board members.

Morris: Related to that is, when you've had a grassroots organization (for ease of de~cri~tion)being funded, it develops its own leadership. Sometimes these are new people who have not been in leadership positions in the community before.

Do you get any feedback, or has there been any board discussion, about what this means for the Bay Area as a whole--whether there's going to be challenges between the old and the new leadership?

Sloss: Of course there already have been challenges, and there have been confrontations, and there have been pickets at UBAC meetings, and things like that--claims that UBAC was unresponsive to the minority community ahd this and that. Sure. But the impression I get--I may be wrong--is that dn the general community, just as in the universities, the activist spirit doesn't seem as intense, or as least as overtly hostile, as it did (let us say) five years ago. I don't know whether that 's good or bad, but it seems to have happened. You don't see so many overt confrontations.

Morris: Because some of these new leaders are finding a place--

Sloss: Maybe they're finding a place; maybe they're becoming a lLttle more sophisticated themselves and are realizing that there are better ways to achieve their objectives than to break up a public meeting or to picket.

[Betty ,Bett&11, Rosenberg administrative assistant, arrives with Foundat ion papers for Mr. Sloss's signature. ] Morris: One of the things that happens with established agencies is that first they got professionalized, and now there are many comments that professional people in social work and in education have become hidebound. Are there any signs that some of the alternate services approaches and leadership are being reflected in proposals coming from teacher or social work training institutions and traditional agencies?

Sloss: I don't at the moment think of anything that I can identify with that. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

Morris: Is that a likely kind of thing to happen?

Sloss: I would think so, but I don't think of any evidence that it's happening. 6. DILEMMAS OF THE 1970g

Economic Pressures and Staffing Needs

Morris: I've been asking questions that have come out of my research. What have I missed that seem to you to be important things that the Foundation has supported or issues that haven't yet been solved-- things that are undone?

Sloss: A coupld. of things. You talk about things that are undone. At the moment I see this Foundation confronting at least two major dilemmas, or problems. One is that it is very difficult, with the amonnt of money we have, to have enough staff to continue to do the kind of quality job we would like to do.

Every once in a while the question comes up, should we do what is clearly invited by the Tax Reform Act? Should we go out of existence and turn our assets over to the San Francisco Foundation, which is not subject to the requirements of he Tax Reform Act, and which has got so many assets now--so much money--that it can afford a sizable staff? We always think the San Francisco Foundation is great, but it's set up to do one thing and we have carved out for ourselves a somewhat different niche, and it would be a pity to abandon that niche and leave it emptx. And yet it is difficult.

You confront inflation, you confront increased salary costs and everything--it is difficult to see how long we can go on doing this kind of job with the amount of money we have. We ought to have about twice as much money, really, so that we could have, instead of two people, at least three or three and a half in the office.

Li would be nice if a few more people like Mks. Mack felt disposed to leave us a couple of million dollars--each. And yet I for one worry, because while I would li,ke to see us have enough money to expand the staff, I view with horror the possibility of this Founda- tion becoming bureaucratized in the way in which the Ford Foundation has. Of course, I realize that if we had a few more million dollars Sloss: and a couple more staff people, we would hardly be a Ford Foundation.

And yet the dilemma that we face is that in a way we are functioning at the expense of a very dedicated staff, putting more burdens on them than they can reasonably be expected to carry--not even paying them adequately, I think. And in one way I think that should not continue, and on the other hand I think if we got big enough to do it right, so to speak, would we lose the very thing that we stand for? I don't know.

Morris: The Rosenberg seems to stand for something very, very special in the Bay Area, in those circles that are concerned about the way the community functions.

One aspect of this I find very curious. In the directory of California foundations there are literally hundreds of listings.* Many of those seem to be small, family foundations, maybe at an earlier stage of development than the Rosenberg. Has there ever been any effort to work with some of those that don't have staffs and that seem to be not as closely in touch with the life of the community as the Rosenberg is?

Sloss: Your question says those that don't have staff; of course, there has been a group formed of the professional people in foundations that do have staff, and they meet regularly. As to the ones that don't have staffs, I don't know that there's any way, really, that you can do this.

The Range of Organizations Called 'Foundation'

Sloss: You see, an awful lot of these so-called foundations are nothing but a name in which some individual (or family) chooses to make his contributions. Something that's called the XYZ Foundation is no different from Mr. X writing out his check annually to UBAC, and his annual donation to the Boy Scouts, the symphony, the opera, the YMCA, the Children's Hospital--it's nothing but a mechanism.

In other words, a lot of them are not foundations at all, in the sense of exercising any judgment by means of an independent, community-

*A Guide to California Foundations, Common College, Woodside, California, 1973. Sloss: based board and with the deliberate intention of not just doing the conventional things, but bringing about improvements in the community. Most of these foundations just wouldn't know what you were talking about if you talked about that; so there's no sense in trying to bring them together.

Morris: I would wonder if, in a group like the Rosenberg board, there might not be a crusading spirit that might wish to make contact with individuals on boards of other foundations--at the board level; to say, "What -are you doing with your foundation? Have you ever thought of looking at things the way we do?"

Has the increase in the number of local foundations that do have staffs eased the problem at all of dealing with the number of grants?

Sloss: It certainly eased some problems, because we do occasionally do things now that are partly funded by other foundations. Sometimes we know that another foundation is probably going to support something, so we can, in effect, say, e ell, we don't have to do this; we can use our money for something else."

There needs to be a lot more of it, of course; there needs to be a lot more foundations than there are, and of those that there are, there needs to be a lot more that have professional staff and open door policies.

Morris: You're the first person I've heard say there needs to be a lot more foundations.

Sloss: Oh, I think there do--at least more good ones. And I think there needs to be a lot more, from what I hear, in Southern California, where they've been very far behind us.

In our policy review, one of the things we talked about was, should we stop making the entire state of California our territory-- should we confine ourselves to Northern California? We generally have ended up with the conclusion that we shouldn't cut Southern California off--at least yet--because they don't have enough comparable foundations down there.

Morris: Is there a different sense of community in the Los Angeles area than there is up here?

Sloss: I think so. I don't know their community well enough to judge, but I think there's some truth in the general impression that one gets in the Los Angeles area that it is probably spiritually as widely scattered as it is geographically [laughs]. Morris : There seem to be a number of quite young foundations in the Bay Area with marvelous names: Vanguard, Abelard, Agape, and other more allegorical names. Are they something that your board keeps an eye on?

Sloss: I'm not familiar with them.

Morris : They're listed in A Guide to California Foundations.

Sloss: I don't know that I've read the directory; I've read the newsletter. But the word 'foundation' is misleading, because so many things are called foundations. A lot of them are just operating organizations.

For example, I had occasion recently to learn that ACT, our theatre group, actually has the corporate name of The American Conservatory Theatre Foundation. But that doesn't mean 'foundation' in the sense that we're talking about at all.

Morris: You've talked a bit about your hopes for the Foundation. Have you got any particular agenda for things that you hope can be gotten underway while you're president?

Sloss: Well, I would say that I wish some unknown benefactor would suddenly leave us an unsolicited fifteen million dollars or so--just so that we can do what we are doing without being quite so tightly limited in the way we do it. I would like to see more foundations coming into existence, or more foundations that are in existence developing to the point where they have a representative community board, open office, and professional staff, as we do. I certainly would like to see more cooperative work among the foundations.

Need for Information and Referral Service for Applicants

Sloss: I certainly would like to see some progress made toward something that we've often talked about, and that is to have, in effect, a referral and information service about foundations for applicants, so that people who come in can be guided to go to the potential funding source that is at least a reasonable possibility, instead of Sloss: just sendingout letters to every name in the directory or just pounding on doors where they don't even get in. This is something that I would very much like to see come into existence.

The fact is, this is one function that Ruth Chance has been performing, and I don't think Rosenberg can afford to have its staff do this alone for the entire community. I think Rosenberg should be a part of it and should help support it, but I don't think Rosenberg should do it. But I'd like to see Rosenberg sparkplug it and get it started.

Morris : Just a foundation information and referral service, or part of the kind of thing that UBAC used to do?

Sloss: I would think that it should be an information service as to funding sources for new projects--whether the information given to somebody would be that this falls right within Title So and So of a federal act; or that state money is available; or there's UBAC money available; or to try the Such and Such Foundation.

Morris : That would also involve the national foundations, too, wouldn't it? Has any local foundation broached this to the national foundations?

Sloss: I don't know whether they've broached it to the national foundations, but I know it's been discussed. And I think it's been discussed at some of these meetings of the national foundation organizations--the Council on Foundations or the Foundation Center (there are two; I always forget which is which).

Morris : It's interesting that in a field as small as foundations, there would be two national organizations.

Sloss: They actually started doing different things, and I think the probability is that they're going to merge one of these days. One of them set out to be a library and information center for foundations. The other set out to be a spokesman for foundations in things like these legislative battles that took place revolving around the Tax Reform Act, and also as a formal organization, holding meetings and conventions.

Morris: What do you see ahead in relation to local foundations, like the Rosenberg, in terms of state and federal legislation?

Sloss : You can't do much on legislation; the Tax Reform Act is very tight on legislation.

Morris : I was thinking of public activity both in terms of regulation of foundations and government funding of programs in the Rosenberg areas of interest. Sloss: I'mnotatallclosetowhat'sgoingonineitherWashingtonor Sacramento. You mean, are they likely to get even tougher than they did in the Tax Reform Act? From what I hear, they're not going to get any easier.

Morris: Does this have to do with a legislature's view of society and how it should function? Or is it that foundations are behaving in an unseemly fashion?

Sloss: I think it has to do with two things--I mean all the steam that led to the Tax Reform Act. One is the fact that a great many foundations are greatly to be blamed and gave a bad name to the word and to the entire field, because they were not legitimate philanthropic enterprises; they were tax avoidance devices or, even worse, genteel rackets by which salaries were paid to people for doing nothing--we've had that even right here in San Francisco, as you probably know.

And some of them--I don't know what they thought they: were keeping their money for, but they didn't spend it; they just accumulated it. Why, I don't know. So what with people who didn't do any good and people who did actual harm, perhaps, and people who were just trying to evade taxes--sure, this created a feeling against foundat ions.

And the other thing is that a couple of foundations were courageous enough socially, but indiscreet enough politically, to get actually into the political process--to finance things like voter registration in the South. From the view of what is socially desirable, it is what you or I might consider gre,at, but one would naturally expect certain congressmen to disapprove and to think that this, after all, was not philanthropy--this was politics.

Morris: The other side of that is the federal granting programs themselves. Various people have mentioned that the applications that come to the Rosenberg sort of rise and fall in various categories, depending on what the federal grant situation is--if they're big on juvenile delinquency the applications in the juvenile delinquency field go there rather than to the Rosenberg.

Sloss: I don't know that I would necessarily go along with that as a generalization. I think if there is activity in a field because there's federal money, there's very likely to be a lot of peripheral activity going beyond the thing that the federal government is supporting--and that's just the sort of thing that would come to us. Social Impact of Foundation Investments

Sloss: One point, that I think you mentioned in your letter, was social impact of foundation investments. We're just facing up to that one now. We had a meeting just this week of the financial policies committee.

Morris: Do you sit on that?

Sloss: Ex officio--as president I'm entitled to go to any committee meeting I want to [laughs]. I was not on that committee before. Peter Haas is chairman of that committee, and Bill Roth, Lew Butler and Leslie Luttgens are on it.

We talked about this business of the voting of stocks--the proxies on stocks owned by the Foundation. We subscribed, a year or two ago, to a service (that was first started at Harvard and is now no longer based at Harvard but is somewhere else) that sends out to nonprofit organizations like ours information about issues that appear on corporate proxies.

Kirke made it a point this spring, during the heavy proxy season, to look at those things--oh, we got the bank to agree, because our securities are held in custody by the bank, and therefore are not in our name; they're in the bank's fictitious name that it uses, and the proxies therefore do not come to us, they come to the bank. So we've arranged with the bank to send us copies of all proxies on stocks that we hold if there are any controversial matters to be voted on. So Kirke summarized those and classified the kind of issues that are presented; then we also subscribe to this service.

He recommended a policy which, with slight change, was adopted by the committee last week, and which I imagine will be approved by the board next week. That was that, in the first place, we would normally support management on election of directors and on management proposals; that we would not get involved in fighting management on purely internal matters--like, do you or don't you have cumulative voting, and similar matters of corporate organization; we didn't care about that. We thought that we would ordinarily not try to inject ourselves into the field of foreign policy, which we think is a little beyond us--people who get excited because a corporation should not be in South Africa or something. We figured we would not vote on matters of that sort.

But other matters--matters of social issues, that we might be expected to concern ourselves with, or that might be expected to be of interest to us--we would review, and each one would be passed upon by a committee consisting of the executive and a board member Sloss: designated to serve in that capacity--the idea seems to be that I'm it on that one--and then decide whether we will vote the proxy for or against, or not at all.

Morris : What kinds of issues does that leave? Whether a company will build a branch plant in a community that does or does not discriminate against minorities?

Sloss: It might come to something of that sort, yes. There may be something of that kind. I don't know just what sort of thing is going to come up. I think it would involve also things like--and where it's likely to come up a great deal--the environmental field: does the company engage in strip mining? When it cuts down the forests, does it replant?

Morris : Do stockholders often get to vote on questions like that?

Sloss: If a dissident group of stockholders wishes to raise this as an issue--such as putting to the stockholders a demand that the management give a report on what they are doing about reforestation-- then it can come up on the proxy. Then it may be worth while to register your stand if you think it important, so that the vote in favor of this is as large as possible. One thing that people seem to agree on is that this sort of stockholder action does have some impact on management, even though the dissenting stockholders never win. Nevertheless, it does have its influence.

Morris : On the future actions that management does or doesn't decide to take?

Sloss: Yes.

Morris : Has Peter Haas commented on this at all, in terms of himself being a corporate official?

Sloss: He mentioned at the meeting on some of these things that perhaps he was too management oriented [laughs], but everyone agreed on this program at the meeting the other day.

Morris : Does the committee ever consider whether or not it should pull some of the Foundation's investments out of a certain corporation because of its public image or practices?

Sloss: We have never yet had to, because we are only just getting into this whole situation at all. We have, of course, in general talked about the point: suppose the co~porationdoes do some things you don't like. What good does it do to sell the stock? That has no influence on the corporation.

Morris : Your protesting voice is then removed from the stockholders? Sloss: That's right. Maybe you can accomplish more by keeping the stock. But this whole thing is so new that we haven't had any experience with it. At any rate, we are facing up to it.

We are also facing up to one other thing, to a small degree, and that is that there has been some pressure from Herman Gallegos to have us make use of the services of minority-owned companies, such as banks. So we took a look at that and concluded that we only saw one thing we could do at the moment--but that we're going to do. We have two bank accounts. The principal bank account, for practical reasons, has to be at the bank that has custody of the securities, because when they sell securities to provide needed money they make the transfers directly into the bank account.

The small working office bank account could be anywhere. So we're going to put that one in a minority-owned bank, which we think we're quite justified in doing, since it's federally guaranteed, without taking any undue risk with Foundation f'unds. 7. LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES

Selecting a New Executive Director

Morris: We talked about selecting board members. It doesn't happen very often, but what's the procedure one goes through in finding a new executive?

Sloss: Well, I guess I can tell you about that, because I was the chairman of the search committee [laughs]. There was appointed a search committee, which consisted of Judge Duniway, Mr. Butler and me, with Mrs. Charles, who was then president, ex officio. The board helped us out with certain criteria, or else we developed some and brought them to the board for discussion--anyway, there were some developed and they were discussed.

We decided we wanted somebody young, preferably no more than forty. We decided that we wanted somebody either from California or at least with relevant California contacts and experience, on the ground that if somebody fresh from New Jersey, for example, who didn't know anyone, came out here, just getting him oriented geographically would probably waste six months or a year. We wanted, of course, somebody whose background and experience were relevant (as they say) to the kind of work we do--either somebody who had worked for foundations or worked with foundations, or had worked in the field--the area--of our interest.

And we wanted somebody who, while not necessarily committing himself to remain in this job for life, would agree that if, after a six months probationary period, everybody was satisfied, and barring anything unexpected, he would plan to stay for a reasonable time--say three to five years. Those were the criteria. We agreed that sex was immaterial--although we'd had awfully good experience with women! Nevertheless, we would not rule out a man if otherwise he was qualified [laughs], and race and so forth was immaterial. Again, we certainly would not rule out a minority person, but we did not feel that it had to be a minority person. Sloss: And then we went to work: Ruth started with the foundations throughout the country,.,who ere informed, I guess by the national organization, that a search was going forward to fill this place. She spoke to people she new; all of the boardmembers were urged to speak to anyone that they knew that they thought might be qualified and to urge them to send in resume's.

We collected quite a stack--something like eighty resuds. The dodttee had a number of meetings, and we weeded out the ones that we did not think warrented an interview because either they obviously did not meet the California criterion, or they were too old, or their experience did not seem relevant; a lot of them just didn't fit in-- some of them were professors or ministers or doctors, with no connections with the sort of thing that we were interestedilin.

We weeded it down to a smaller number and those we interviewed. Some, the whole committee interviewed; and then it got to be difficult to get the members together and have enough time, so some of them we parcelled out and just one member of the c'ommittee interviewed them. Finally, we narrowed it down to two, of whom Kirke was one, and the other was a very intelligent young lady now employed by the Ford Foundation in New York. We brought her out twice--once to be interviewed by the committee, and then we had a special session before a regular board meeting at which each of them was interviewed by the whole board--each of these last two. Then we made our selection between those two.

Morris : What tipped the balance?

Sloss : I think that would be a little indiscreet.

Morris : Yes'i,, but it1s a fascinating question. They were both undoubtedly highly qualified, superior people.

Sloss: Well, they were both highly qualified and the &ommittee, before taking them to the board, had agreed that each member of the committee would be content if the board took either of these two.

Of my own preference, which was for $he one who got it, I would say two or three things. One was that while the other candidate had -some California connection, she did not have nearly as intimate a connection with California as Kirke does--who, after all, has worked for the state, has been up and down the Central Valley, knows every county in California the way you know the back of your hand--which I thought was a great advantage. And he had a close personal relationship with Ruth Chance, which to me jiade it likely that the transition would be smoother than it would be with a stranger. Sloss: The third was that I felt that this woman had a--perraps a chip on the shoulder is too strong an expression--strong feeling that if she took the job it would have to be on her own terms in order to protect her identity, her status, her importance, which again I felt would lead to a less smooth transition and perhaps a less harmonious relationship with the board.

Morris : Am I correct that the final selection does not have the PhD kind of professional training that many people do in the foundation field?

Sloss : Oh, not at all. No, we didn't want that. Speaking as a member of the search committee, I looked rather askance at people who had PhDs and who wrote the kind of letters that PhDs often write--you know, talked in academic jargon.

Morris : I think the process of selecting people and how people work together in an organization is a very interesting part of how it functions.

Sloss : This is one pPece that might interest you, that I drafted when we were getting embarrassed because we had taken so long and no decision had been made.

Morris : May we use this as a supporting document?

Sloss : You may have a copy of it. [see illustration next page.]

Morris : I wonder if you can summarize what are Ruth Chance's particular, gifts, aside from the stamina to put in an eighty or ninety hour week?

Sloss : I think I told you at the beginning of our conversation the other day that I couldn't do that without just resorting to a string of sgperlatives.

The President 's Routine

Morris: How much time does it take to do what you feel is a good job by your responsibilities as president of the Foundation board?

Sloss: Theprincipaljob,ofcourse,isthetime ofthemonthlymeeting, and it~mshdl3ytakes a good -t;wm or three hours--plus the time to read the material. Dear

The Rosenbcrg Foundation is grateful to you for having permitted yourself to he considered as a potential successor to the present Executive Director. I.72 regret that you had to be kept waiting so long for a response.

A surprisingly large number of men and women, many having excellent qualifications, either applied or were suggested for the position, In this we consider ourselves fortunate, but the very breadth of choice has made the process of selection slow and difficult. The volume made it impossible to interview everyone, and criteria had to be developed an6 applied to narrow the field in gradual stages. He recognize that such a process falls short of the theoretical ideal of exhaustive investigation and evaluation of every individual, but no other approach seemed to be practicable.

The final selection has not yet been made, but' the choice has now focused on a very small number, of whom you are not one. Rather than to keep you in an uncertain position any longer, we thought it best to inform you now that your name is no longer under consideration. With repeated thanks for your interest and patience. Sincerely, Sloss : Since I became president this year, the present system is that on the day before the board meeting, Kirke and I have lunch together and go over the agenda and everything that's going tocoome up at the meeting;-we may spend a coupld of hours doing that. The following day is the meeting itself, which is generally a longish meeting--it may run from twelve to two-thirty, or something of that sort. This check signing is just because I happen to be the handiest to the office, and that doesn't amount to anything ; Betty rings up and says, "can I bring in a batch of checks before lunch," and she does. So that isn't at all time consuming. Then the rest of it is occasional committee meetings or whatever.

Morris : Do you find yourself with ideas about the Foundation, or pondering some of the kinds of issues that are coming up in grants, on the back burner in your brain while talking with people or doing other things?

Sloss : Oh, occasionally, if something suggeS&s it. And, of course, there is generally some pondering between Thursday and Friday when the agenda is delivered for the meeting and the ensuing Wednesday. What I generally do is to try to read this once before I leave the office-- before the weekend--and then let it simmer over the weekend, and then go over it again on Monday or Tuesday more rapidly.

Morris : You said that you thought that being accessible to the executive was an important kind of a thing. Is this to talk over questions while the agenda is being jelled, or while projects and proposals are being discussed?

Sloss : Kirke hasn't done that, no. But what I had in mind was if anything unusual comes up--I don't mean just routine husiness. Suppose he gets a questionnaire from the Attorney General's office that isn't a routine one; or a protest from somebody who says we're going to be picketed because we're not doing this or are doing that, and he feels he would like to discuss i%with somebody before answering it--I would think that sort of thing.

Or anything else$-recently we just had word that the bank is considering increasing its fee for acting as custodian of the funds; what should we do about it? That sort of thing.

Morris : Would that be the kind of thing that you would handle as president?

Sloss : No, we would refer that to Peter Haas as treasurer and chairman of the financial policies committee.

Morris : You mentioned the Attorney general--% he as much of a presence in

terms of the Foundation's business affairs as the federal Tax Reform % Act procedures are? Sloss : Well, there are both federal and state forms to be filed. I know we've had federal audits eyery year since the Tax Reform Act, which is a great nuisance. I don't know whether we've actually had state audits, too. The Attorney Beneral's entitled to do anything, you know; he has plenaryl power oyer all charities 3n the state. From way back, by English legal tradition, in all the statesoBf7the United States, the Attorney general is the reppesentative of the public in supervising charitable corporations.

Morris : Is this -the Attorney ,&nerd, or is there a deputy Attorney General?

Sloss : Oh, there's a Deputy Attorney general who handles that. I knew the recent one, Charles Rumph--a very nice fellow, a good friend of John May's. But he's just gotten a Washington job, and is leaving here. I don't know who it is now.

Morris : I believe I read that the state Attorney General's office was going to do a more complete job oP duplicating information about the foundations registered in California so that they would be more easily available. Is this a help or a hindrance? Or does it tie in at all with your idea of an information servkce?

Sloss : I didri't know anything about it, but it might well be a help, I should think. I don't see how it can do any harm.

Morris : I find reference to an emergency flmd, that I guess has been put together through the offices of several foundations as part of UBAC. Is there ever any of this kind of response--? saoss : You're talking about UBAC money?

Morris : I'm talking about discussions of emergencies that come ~p.,either within a project that 's already funded, or if in a community an emergency arises.

Sloss : We don't have, in the Foundation, any emergency fund that is set apart.

Morris : Did that discussion come to your board at all--that there should be some kind of mechanism by which there can be a response?

Sloss : Oh, I think it may have been mentioned that perhaps we ought to have some small amount that the exeo.utive aould disgurse without requiring the board' s authority, but I don't think it's actually ever been done. I don't think Ruth particularly wanted it.

Interviewer-Editor: Gabrielle Morris ~ranscriber/FinalTypist: Judy Johnson -nplul-,L 12, April 16, I?": POSTSCRIPT, April 16, 1975

By the time the script of the interview had been typed and submitted to me for correction, some policy developments in the Rosenberg Foundation had taken place.

It is no longer true (see pp. 41-42) that there are no rules on the allocation of money between rural and urban projects. After Kirke Wilson had submitted an extremely able analysis of current rural problems, and after discussion at several board meetings, it was decided to earmark $100,000 out of the 1975 grants budget of $675,000 specifically for rural projects. The particular projects have not yet been selected.

At the annual policy meeting last evening, it was concluded that the 1972 polibies have now been tested and have worked successfully. They are no longer called "experimental," but are now simply the present policies. Of course, they remain subject to change in the future.

Frank H. Sloss APPENDIX - . - MU- P>&o= ZbdtM C m t m,~ %y 24, 3%3 by W. Et%%&$c 8119s~G 7'"

phhta s su'Sm.%of your cmc%mme~~~a that b W vast bdsic ~rogran

at? Bib- IIeafara Wt exhta in thlsBao 5n otWclfics, gmviilhg th@

raXccmtary neeb M ~~5a$~itaxefor h438 nmbera af peopUr Z hva attmdcd a @at aaay of 42x2s W, anit 2% fs a4bce, mm /' OP Lass BCC~~~W,X tma bmxg?\t to camerrs ~PQUnore closely w3th thla

%hat2 paid mu& aLkmt%cmto Pub& WelfareI, md jf% S wed to attend &-

~OM%(5 ~~ought) we3Zm aoe%wyew a-fter yew, -Mug that -&awe

WUcd c3aut the CdtgrChasC wd its azeraies ml what tSQy d%B, 1- we%*

la&&qa3m%XerPwe etS &?a R%~?%SCO.X ~13433 +a~vcrlwk, Z th+A scce

p2U IlS~8 kiGg %iO fikci; .ikiak %;ZS axud ~~ditUTC302 ~ ~ W €3 Pdk~li~~ C Q ~

tiexme S23art3&1t arc on t39 0z3w fl tea -t;%~.i39a~1nlzch n~myas U1 C. Fa

&kxc%as Ca c3.X of $.to Swcrl e;exicj.c;l p-L Bc>;Wei"j thf,the %bUc Ve?:f'em

l?EsZpirtnz~.&h its E"adlyCase:: akr~ffU a& o 04+3e tii%?be kzii## 0-

load, of cbsa to fPm ftxaSLie?s,

W ve &mtay=h ettmtforr ia thatl md B%~Utkink wa me

d w SYP,L%u83fWGp W atvr bW@3~8rEQ'k*fJ %dXQ ?3 XUok &'b %hh

pwt baQt 1~8t~3.vemhe3mJ~y&,thrbqepu% of a0 basfe wclS;fara pm,mn

ti& t,iualipg bagpea*. f thbk m m4t begin by tn3cZs.g tb ae accegted, mad 5Lt bar, hen at

Wsti s&&e the w3-mt of P.hn t;xIa& Eecur5ty Act; &I 339, thou& a.9 Z?W%S

go bw.B much n-er, t3wb 2% 23 pS.fl.fcy %Pm% %hapwmaPr, ~?%r?Xle,tsra

a bs1~rsr;gonaibUttjfok ri?Ocipa nee& of pmgla 3.21 the XKsmtic8y:pil

eaJ~gorLc$a,~.iculsz~ly31.i' us t& ixt 3ucL6al Swui33iy Ac% eaW&orPw children, the aged, the blind, snd now more recently, the disabled, and id k* f- +be Federal aid is given for thie purpose, anb Federal standards are A I estsblished. 'Phis has been true for twenty-flve years. mlng that time, the Public WeU8,re prom throughout the country hm learned to Bo I pretty efficierrtly what was conofdered fts main job, namely, to establish I the eLigibiUty of applicmto and to dfspeme the Ainds or the relief that ma needed. lie do it pretty well. The quentlrn that n& ariaes is, is that . . ;.,. . ' ' . enokh, 'even 'though 'it'.a done *et%y bell? ' .'Pihlnk tltFs.prk;tjr obvfo'u that'..

. i-t isn't enough, Anyone.who serves on a Public Welfme C~iasionlearns . 1 ...... pretty quickly that there are great criticisms of the Publik'%elf&e pro- :

gmn, 8.?d the criticism cme from both sides,+gm the wesfare-minded there 1 fs the criticism that the social services given by Public Welfare are ...... inzdequate, 'the cage lads are inpo~ni'o3-~hi*, ad can -& . I . . $hiq.as be* a co~~ot,ent;,.~i~a1soci~l ser~ice at a322 Fro2 ~letax-minded % ...... : ...... - . . canes the coqua-ixlt, "Look bw Lbe costs keep rising, and, the 2$03bms aren't solved, mil aren't gettins ally closer -to soiution, and the money is just I being poured down the dra-i.~." 1s there mything that can be done to meet either of these criticisms, I let alone botll? We thbk Lkre is. To state this nm approach in its . . sbples-;;terns, f. think you tti:;trt begin by sayT~!that every fraily in .y~"' A w-G trouble/coaes to the fittentlo:? of a Public Welrkaxe agency, should '~eviewed

not sb!?u ns an additional -k.ylc, or aa additional file, or additional

caw, or an sdditi.olm.1 statistic, but 8s chauenge, individual and different ee.dGd otner that the ob in that frola each 4 and jcctivea dealing trith Smily we rehabilitstioa and prevention, not Just alleviation or helping out with an I imecaiate financial crisis. If SO can do it, ue win obvtoualy give nn~h more help ta tho people conccrnd, md, by solvixiy or er~din;:proilZews, save I money for the taxpsyers Loo. 9Em do we grquse to do it? Ey having every fmi%y,the trealment of every famiby, t;hs hmdllag of every fmily, begin

with a dis(g.nostlc study in which 5t is amght to determine whst; is the probLem,

or are the that in the peat; majority it is not cme problan but many) which must be accumpanted by a treatment plan

for tbat family--not just a plan of huding out so much money, but a trea.i;anent

plan directed to the problema. Of course this means that the entire system ......

...... of .running,'&e Dqpwbnmt, .ha.b,be .revo3.ut-i.oniz.&... . . Cages. have to b? classi- ...... , . . :...... fied. (L!I;~ rec(:)rd&din.zn . entireiy akw. way. . $his .In turn nleiina t1m.t;.the zrllole

stW2, f top , Ira? to , in the poq of new ...:.... rcxn fie . $6'.. Mk bbtAa, be tralnsd.... these ...... methdr,. Xlen t'nia h~sonce been acccj~~pEi~hed,hbrl3.s-i ~2alrespossYoY-e a very ...... great thh@;--t'hat hstcxxl OFshply handing.out the cases,. 60 that each workdr .

. . ui.21 carry.so qtii~y,cases... (,ait s always too ~ny)--yu~~can, , you title , . ' ..:...... ,rh+ mr...... -. : ...... ".... ', . . nai;lu*eof the _ara>l=s a22 what can ~~ocs.i~blybe done by ?.xyof trea.tment, jrot~

a?-oi~~,dosr. to the nost cor.~pLe::, SYI:IET~yau LX~Yhave every pro7~la,i:i*J1lezsp+ f' -J c \ nm-iil, a~tioiml,or hysiccll. Xmista3ility of all E:Lnd.- r,mri.';nl brsalrdo~m~ I 3 2 whatever Pt aay be, it my e:ris-L;, and they myall. o:!-exist. . .

. , . . .T;lgn,puq an.. or~cj,n~&e~qu?:.C;A?.~G 60 ,Lilla$; woy;.rer cars.y.qore ...... , ...... easy ccssj, or a inli"rcble ~ixifae~G;? ni*.3.i.L!xicnses, or jl~:;.i; ca ri'~;;~dLi'i"icu1-I; cines

wkkh cxi 'clicn kc ~il,-eniutensli-e ~e~fice,and this, i.:e hope, cau i;e acccm~3lished

with Ift3-e or no overa33. incllease in staff. Also j~!-pL!-eit in this progra is,

of cowse, the use of other ccmwity' resouces includi~agthoae that

Mr. Fle$sLkcker hr.s ma1tlone0, aad a continua cmlua.&,ion,periodically,

regularly, or' dntts happening .crPJch eoclz fmily. Is it succeec!ing? Is the

situation getting any better? Is.it getting{ xrrorse (r:hich 3.t ]my velX do,

notvithntautlirig all of tllese a~oriu)?k'ht do vc? do &bout it? Ti4 70d Where we aav stand in &in Francfsoo is thla. $an lkancbco ZhblPc P Welfare Deparbent made a contra& s year or eo ago with Cosmuni%yReswch

Asaoclatea by which that organization, a skilled professional organization,

underbok to %rainthe staff of %he Department, and to put these procedures

into effect for all of the long-term fmily aeea of the Degartanmt. %hie

was made poeaible by a $rant from the Rosenberg Fo~mdation,wikh afd Proaa

Federal fundfl and a -.f; deal of helgf'ul collsbomtion fpcm the 81;a%e . . . .

lkpWmaP1. ., of ,Social.Welfare*.... ,- task -bebeen rscccmp2isheil. .during fjae.:.- , ...... , ......

We5s the first; arsjor camunity in the Uai%ed 6-tartee theat be gotten

%.Us. , far in. although the is fast, t!;e , ic1e.a spre~db; . . . .- .propan, ...... ndv, it% much too to point to results. AU can nt

thi6 -tW.i@.%bat with.ep@+%het* p:&..gie,.he&... . ,L' . .' ysu.mtcPZ..this ;Laterea.t; . .

b-ii2ye fi in kjdicaQc-dc -S;" .-' . -*aedzit succie&~ irr ~i-1d-s2h2se of th% ...... -- .',, . ..;;' ...... ' ' .' , ';,' *,,@&&i-,i-%~~:'. . ..@y@y-&ph..&j;..-j,g&.@ :.:$$)g$ge.a. : .. -. ,">...... :;*&&!$&, ...... which a: haw xi11 be of concern La i&r.kosr~swhen he coma to speak of %he

problas cS: the aging ir, a fev ninutes. 1% is, I thul;, not s sigxifiesnt

but an e:citicg md 1:0pc?td, ievelop~entfar %~hicki,es 1 say, we enl.ist your

...... " .aymp~eticiiteres%, ~&&:pu. very G'UC~. The Bancroft Library University of ~alifornia/~erkeley Regional Oral History Office

Bay Area Foundation History Series Volume IV

Edmond S. Gillette, Jr.

SMALLER FOUNDATION TRUSTEESHIP: OBLIGATIONS TO FRIENDSHIP AND THE COMMUNITY

An Interview Conducted by Gabrielle Morris

@ 1976 by The Regents of the University of California TABU OF CONTENTS -- Edmond S . Gillette , Jr.

INTERVIEW HISTORY

1. PERSONAL BACKGROUND

2. DEAN WITTER FOUNDATION Financial Research and Conservation Multitude of Applicants, Staff Screening

3. SORENSEN FOUNDATION: HOSPITALS AND YOUNG PEOPLE

4. EDWARD E. HILLS FUND: MATCHING GRANTS FOR BRICKS AND MORTAR

5. MIRANDA LUX FOUNDATION Expanding the Concept of Manual Arts Public Schools, Community Agencies, and Unions

6. THE FOUNDATION COMMUNITY Board Members and other San Francisco Foundations Evaluating Results Regulatory and Economic Concerns Community Involvement Federal Grants and Tax Structure

APPENDIX - Selected Pages from A Guide To California Foundations, Abrahams, Casson, and Daul, Common College, March, 1973

INDEX INTERVIEW HISTORY

Edmond S. Gillette, Jr., was interviewed by the Regional Oral History Office to record his perspective as trustee of four Bay Area philanthropic foundations. In describing the differences and similarities of these smallish but responsible charitable trusts, he gives a good picture of the private foundation as an extension of personal philanthropy.

An Annapolis graduate who left the regular navy and came to San Francisco in 1950, Gillette tells of friendships with and guidance from the older generation of business leaders, men like Edward S. Hills and Dean Witter, who later named him as trustee to continue their philanthropies. It was they who encouraged him to become involved in community activities, a practice which he is now instilling in his young associates.

In Gillette's view, the responsibility of the trustees of these private foundations is to interpret and implement the wishes of the founders. Their guidelines tend to be continued support for leading schools, hospitals, and selected other organizations that are a credit to the comfortable world in which the founders were successful.

An interesting variation on this pattern is the Miranda Lux Foundation, established in 1908 and devoted to vocational education and training. With advice of counsel, the Lux trustees have responded to applications from nursery schools and have debated the social changes that leave sizable numbers of young adults still in need of job training. Only philosophically, he says firmly, he and his fellow trustees have wondered whether they should "fold up our tents and try to get rid of all our money in five years just because we think society is going to pot," and pondered other current issues within the foundation world.

Gillette's response seems to be to work harder at doing the foundations' work well: he tells with relish of going to meet with a grantee organization to insist that they do better with the funds they have received. He describes vividly the frustrations of dealing with the barrage of applications for money, the majority of which seem to be circularized appeals rather than proposals for specific staff or program development.

A single interview was recorded on 10 April 1975 in Mr. Gillette's pleasant corner office in the International Buiading in downtown San Francisco, where he is president of Johnson and Higgins of California, international insurance brokers. The sunny room contained mementoes of his naval career, and there were other echoes in his decisive voice and direct manner. A bit above medium size in height and build, he wore a duck- hunter*!^ tie, indicating a lasting interest in sports and fitness. He reviewed the rough-edited transcript of the interview promptly, making only minor revisions.

Interviewer-Editor

4 March 1976 Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley ÿÿ ate of Interview: 10 April 19751

1. PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Morris : You mentioned on the phone that you serve on the boards of four foundations. The California Foundation Directory, put out by the group from Common College, mentions, I found, three.

Gillette : I'm on the Dean Witter Foundation board and the Miranda Lux Foundation board and the Harvey and Maud Sorensen Foundation and the Edward Hills Foundation. Now, these are all relatively small foundations with assets ranging from around a million; probably the largest one is two million.

Morris: That would total close to five or six.

Gillette : You mean assets. Yes, in this market--it may be down a little bit, but we're making a recovery on practically all of them.

Morris : Good. I wonder if you might tell me a little bit about yourself and what got you involved in becoming a trustee of these foundations.

Gillette : These are all basically personal types of relationships. I have been on the Dean Witter Foundation for probably fifteen years; Mr. Witter was my father-in-law. I havebeen on the Edward Hills Foundation probably eight, and this was just because I happened to know the Hills family going back through the ages.

Morris : To when the Dean Witter and the Hills foundations were started?

Gillette : No. I went on the Dean Witter when it was started. But, no, the Hills Foundation was founded before I went on. The Sorensen Founda- tion--I was one of the original trustees, once again a long-time friend of Mr. Sorensen; I used to hunt with him a great deal. The Miranda Lux Foundation dates way back.

Morris : I checked the IRS 990A forms in the Social Science Library at Berkeley, and I was surprised to find that its date of incorporation is 1908. Gillette: Yes, I was going to say around the turn of the century. I wasn't going to be that accurate, but it goes way back into the old Miller and Lux cattle families that were very substantial back three generations. One of the heirs was a close personal friend. They had a vacancy and asked me tocome on that probably six or eight years ago, also. So it's all been through personal ties.

Morris : Are you, then, a native Californian and San Franciscan?

Gillette : No. I was born in Aurora, Illinois, and brought up in Santa Monica, California, and came to San Francisco in 1950. I was in the regular navy, and when I got out of the navy I came to San Francisco.

Morris : That's a fairly common practice, isn't it?

Gillette: Well, here or Coronado. [~aughter]

Morris : I thought of Coronado as where people went when they retired.

Gillette: I think much more so, yes; much more so.

Morris : When you came to San Francisco, did you get involved in any civic activities?

Gillette: I've always been quite involved: United Bay Area Crusade; I was one of the founding trustees of the Cathedral School for Boys; I've been on the board of the YMCA and Planned Parenthood. There are quite a few. others--

Morris: In the fund-raising end, or the planning end?

Gillette : In the fund-raising end.

Morris : So that you're familiar with the community board operation?

Gillette : Yes, pretty much so; that is right.

Morris : And your involvement with the foundations, then, has been a matter of personal acquaintance rather than anything related to your career in the insurance industry?

Gillette : Absolutely. Practically nothing from the insurance industry; this has all been extracurricular activities and close friends. 2. DEAN WITTER FOUNDATION

Financial Research and Conservation

Morris: Did you participate in the discussions with Dean Witter when he decided to set up a foundation?

Gillette: No. He set it up through his attorneys and just designated five trustees.

Morris: Okay, then. I've got a few questions about some of the specific foundations. Dean Witter was the first one that you went on.

Gillette: That 's correct.

Morris: And it reviews proposals quarterly, according to the Foundation Directory?

Gillette: To begin with, the Dean Witter Foundation was set up as a vehicle for Dean Witter to leave most of his estate to. So it really was insignificant until his death in May of '69. The Foundation is basically pursuing two endeavors: we attempt to support financial research and have made pretty substantial three-year commitments to three of the business schools for financial research projects; and our other endeavor is conservation in Northern California. The only reason we've limited ourselves to Northern California is that we just don't have that much income to become involved in a much bigger area. We are just concluding our three-year project on the Farallon Islands through the Point Reyes Bird Observatory. I think we've gotten them on their feet.

We have done two or three projects with Trout Unlimited, Nature Conservancy--things of this type, all of quite a modest nature: I would say any place from a twenty-five hundred dollar grant to a ten thousand dollar grant.

Morris: That can mean a lot to a new organization just getting started. Gillette: Yes. Basically what we're looking for in the conservation field is seed money to get a project started, because we're not going to be able to live with--we don't want to live with a particular project for the rest of its life. I think the Farallon Islands is a great example. They were trying to establish a bird observatory out there to protect the birds, protect the sea lions and what have you, and they are now self-sufficient. We financed them on a one-for-one matching gift program.

Morris : With who else?

Gillette: Well, they had personal gifts. We do this a great deal, I mean. In practically all of these foundations, we're playing with such small amounts of money that we like to consider ourselves as giving seed money. To give an organization a five thousand or a ten thousand dollar grant payable when they raise a comparable amount of money, I think gives them some incentive and gives them some sales appeal to various individuals.

On the Point Reyes Bird Observatory project, the California Academy of Science helped them out, and I think most of the rest of it came from individual gifts.

Morris: If you do this a lot, you must have continuing contacts with the people that you are giving grants to. They have to come back to you?

Gillette: We're required to do that by law. I mean, we have to get status reports so that we're sure our monies are being expended properly and in accordance with our bylaws. and what have you.

Morris: Was the document that set up the Dean Witter Foundation specific about the financial research and conservation?

Gillette: No, it was not.

Morris: How did you arrive at those guidelines for making grants?

Gillette: Fundamentally, after Dean Witter passed away, we knew about what our income would be, and we made up our mind that we couldn't be everything to everybody. We researched this quite thoroughly; Dean Witter was very interested in finance and made his livelihood there, so we thought that would be a good area to support. And, of course, he was a very avid outdoorsman, and conservation was high on his hit parade; so we went along more or less with his personal desires: if he were still here, these would be the things that he would like to be sponsoring.

Morris: Were there any other major topics the different trustees proposed during the discussion period? Gillette: This goes back seven or eight years; I would say that I would have no recall at all.

Multitude of Requests, Staff Screening

Morris: Did you retain Lawrence Kramer as an adviser at this stage?

Gillette: No, we didn't. I would say Mr. Kramer has been our executive director for probably four years. I got to know Mr. Kramer through the Miranda Lux Foundation. So I felt very comfortable with his services.

The multitude of requests that we get, if you're going to do =type of job at all of trying to screen them, you just have to have somebody who can devote a reasonable amount of time to it. We get a number of requests. We have to do a lot of follow-up on our gifts from the Dean Witter Foundation, and Mr. Kramer basically provides this f'unction for us.

Morris : Tell me a little about him.

Gillette: He is in the consulting business--emery Blum and Associates--and he does this for I couldn't tell you how many foundations, but probably five, six or seven. This is the way he makes his livelihood, through acting as a part-time director of small foundations. He gets into other projects, and I really honestly don't know what other communications-type projects he is in.

Morris: It's set up so that all applications go to him?

Gillette: This has been a little hard. We're gradually getting this done. I get still a large quantity; I just send them over to Larry and he screens them. He will come back with six or eight and say: do you think there's going to be any interest of the trustees on these six or eight?

I'll go through them and say: I think these are a little too far out for us, but here are four that maybe we should know something more about. Then he will make contact, go down to visit the particular establishment. We've just done one for the oceanography lab at Santa Cruz. We haven't even given them any money yet, but if they pass their environmental impact study, get off the ground, then we're going to help them out a little bit.

Morris: This is just getting started? Gillette: Just getting started. Larry went down and spent a full day researching all the project. Then he writes a summary of what they are endeavoring to do, and makes his recommendations on whether we should pursue it further or not. His recommendations aren't necessarily followed, but we do like to have him give his basic reaction to any of the charities.

Morris: Does he do a rough summary of all the applications that have come in during the period since the last board meeting?

Gillette: He couldn't possibly do it. We'd just be wasting money, because we get so many applications for endeavors that just aren't going to fit our pattern, and we don't have this much money. So he doesn't do anything; unless a request has the possibility of fitting into our giving pattern, we don't pursue them any further.

Morris : Having narrowed down two fairly specific areas, large though those are, have you got any rough idea of how many applications that excludes--fifty percent, sixty percent?

Gillette: Gee, I would say it excludes ninety percent or better. I mean, we get them from Atlanta and Kentucky and Tennessee and Korea--we're just absolutely deluged.

Morris : Fascinating; it really is.

Gillette : It's frustrating to see people who have no idea how to approach foundations, really; it's just a scatter gun approach. You can see from most of the letters that they've gotten some type of a mailing list ; it's a form letter and they just addressograph them out.

Morris : Would this be the general fund-raising kind of request, rather than: we have a specific project for which we are looking for new money?

Gillette: It runs the full gamut. You'll get a letter from Timbuktu, Oregon, that some young man or young lady wants to have you pay her tuition for four years of college.

Morris : And those come as a form letter which looks as if it's gone to many organizations?

Gillette : No, I wouldn't say so. A lot of those are hand written, typed. I really haven't looked at them that closely because they definitely don't fit into our pattern, so there's no sense in pursuing them. How they get ahold of our name, I have no idea.

Morris: There 's been an increase in foundation directories. [~aughing]

Gillette: Yes. 3. SORENSEN FOUNDATION: HOSPITALS AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Morris: Okay. Tell me a bit about the Sorensen Foundation. From the public documents available, that sounds very interesting.

Gillette: It is interesting in one respect, but it's the smallest foundation of the four that I'm on. Approximately eighty-five percent of the income of the Sorensen Foundation, by Mr. Sorensen's will or the document he set the foundation up in, goes to specifics: the Children's Hospital of San Francisco, the Children's Hospital of Oakland, Ducks Unlimited (which Harvey was a strong supporter of), the Boy Scouts. This takes care of the major income from that foundation. So we only have discretionary income of probably fifteen or twenty thousand dollars a year.

Harvey was very interested in young people. Here, once again, we've tried to limit our pattern pretty much to projects that will go for the betterment of young people and not the full gamut. We've given to Synanon and we've given, certainly, to the Boy Scouts, Planned Parenthood for a few special projects. But, once again, basically seed money. Cazadero Music Center.

Morris: Was Cazadero starting something new?

Gillette: Yes. They wanted to build a little building up there. We gave them a matching gift grant.

Morris: What did Mr. Sorensen have in mind by putting eighty-five percent, roughly,of the income into hospitals?

Gillette: It's basically his desire. I guess he had had a strqng tie with these hospitals. I don't think he was ever on their boards.

Morris: There's quite an assortment of them. And then there were a couple of others added after two or three years. I wondered if they were directed toward research, or if they were just general operations.

Gillette: Just general operations. Morris : That 's interesting.

Gillette : It is.

Morris : In the early reports that I looked at, there were also a couple of programs for physically handicapped children. Quite often there is some kind of a personal story behind why somebody does what he does with his worldly goods. I wondered if Mr. Sorensen might have had such an involvement.

Gillette: No. I've never even thought about that. I don't think there was any tie. No, Harvey was very philanthropically-minded in his later years.

Morris : What did he do with his early years?

Gillette: He was the founder of what we call the United Grocers. This is a co-op type of an operation to buy wholesale grocery goods for small retail outlets. He was one of the founding members of Ducks Unlimited, so he has always had that orientation.

Morris : As a "save our flyways" or as a duck hunter?

Gillette: Well, certainly as a duck hunter. I think that most of the Ducks Unlimited impetus was from the standpoint that civilization is taking over all of their breeding grounds and all of their resting ponds and what have you, and if we're going to keep our flyways in this country going, it had to have some special consideration. I would say, to a large degree, most of the duck hunters participate in it; but, on the other hand, you've got quite a few sustaining members of Ducks Unlimited that are also Audubon Society members.

You know, ducks are a very unusual type of bird. Actually, if you stopped shooting ducks this year, you would probably have half of them die within the year. They get in concentrated areas and they get botulism and all types of disease; and,really, hunting has always been kind of a harvesting type of endeavor more than slaughter.

Morris: There've always been limits on the duck take, too.

Gillette : Yes.

Morris : For the Sorensen group, the directory lists a Mr. Glaser as the person to contact.

Gillette: This is right. Henry Glasseris an attorney and he is an associate of one of our trustees, Mr. Bancroft, president of the Foundation. Just from a standpoint of trying to keep our expenses down and what have you, Mr. Bancroft's office handles our books and does our Gillette: minutes and does a lot of the nitty-gritty that, if we farmed out, would cost us two or three times as much.

Morris : In other words, there's enough paperwork involved that you'd have to have some kind of secretarial person to handle it anyway?

Gillette: No, not secretarial as you're speaking of, but we do have to document . each and every one of our board meetings and we review the minutes and have to approve them from last year. All of this has to be done on a very formal basis if you're going to really run your foundation in a business-like manner.

Morris : I wondered if, by any chance, he is Robert Glaser who's executive now for the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is interested in medical affairs.

Gillette: No, no tie at all. He pronounces it "Glasser ."

Morris : Is it spelled with two s's?

Gillette: Yes.

Morris : Then there's a typo in the directory.

Gillette: [TO secretary] Mrs. B., doesn't Henry spell his name with two s's?

Mrs. B.: Yes.

Morris : With the Sorensen Foundation putting so much money into hospitals, I thought that there might be some informal contact with the Kaiser Foundat ion.

Gillette : No. This was just Harvey's wish, and it is specifically set out. We have what we call the restricted fund and the unrestricted fund, and the restricted fund has to give--I'm saying eighty-five percent, and I think it is, but it might be eighty-two and a half or something like this; I just forget how it adds up. But those are gifts that we are compelled to give annually.

Morris : So that all you do is say: yes, it's now time to make this year's gift.

Gillette : When we determine what our annual income is, each one ofthe hospitals and Ducks Unlimited get a particular percentage of that income.

Morris : Mr. Bancroft also sits on the Dean Witter Foundation board.

Gillette : That's right. Morris: Was he by any chance the attorney who drew up the will?

Gillette: He was the attorney for both Dean Witter and Harvey Sorensen. Dean Witter used Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro also. I imagine they were involved, too, in that foundation when it was originally set up, but the Harvey Sorensen Foundation was set up by Jim Bancroft.

Morris: Several people we've interviewed have commented that, apparently, attorneys who write wills find advising their clients on what to say in a foundation type of document gets sort of complicated. Does Mr. Bancroft ever talk about that--that people sometimes are not too sure how they want to do this or how they want to set it up?

Gillette: I don't think you find too many people who want to leave their money to foundations. Mr. Sorensen had no heirs at all, and so I think that was the principal impetus there. I think Dean Witter fundamentally felt that his family had been reasonably well taken care of and there was a great deal of merit in setting up a separate fund to be utilized for charitable purposes.

But the IRS and everybody else are looking down the foundations' throats so much now, that I don't think, in the current climate, many people are leaving their estates in the foundations; I think it's almost a thing of the past. 4. EDWARD E. HILLS FUND: MATCHING GRANTS FOR BRICKS AND MORTAR

Morris : How about the Hills Foundation? That's one that's not very visible.

Gillette: This isn't very visible because the principal assets were Hills Brothers stock, and, of course, Hills Brothers stock is privately held--no annual statements, nothing. I think that probably Mr. Hills felt that this was a good vehicle to keep the families out of squabbles and just put it off to the side and had its income go to charitable institutions. His orientation was a degree towards hospitals and also an interest in young people. So with this foundation, once again we've restricted our giving pattern to specific and interesting hospital projects, and the rest have been bricks and mortars for secondary schools.

Morris : Private schools?

Gillette: Private schools. We've done the Cathedral School and Branson's and Crystal Springs and the Athenian. I believe, before my time, they did Cates and one or two others down in Southern California; it hasn't necessarily been limited to Northern California. Here we've tried to give substantial grants and give them over an extended period of time.

Morris: Does that make it simpler for the board, if you know that for the next five years you're going to be--?

Gillette: Yes, it does make it simpler for the board, but I think having decided that we were going to be quite interested in bricks and mortar for secondary schools, two thousand dollars doesn't mean very much .

The Town School here in town, when they were doing all their building--I can't remember exactly what the amount was, but probably a hundred thousand dollars over five years, matching gift. So that the board had something to say when they were going out and talking to somebody: if you give five hundred, it's going to mean another five hundred from the Hills Foundation. Morris: Is this an idea that seemed practical, from your UBAC experience--the matching gift?

Gillette: No, I didn't pick it up there at. all. I honestly don't know where we got into this matching gift. There's another one I can't put my finger on for you right off the bat.

I've done a lot of f'und raising and I do think that it's a very decided plus to be able to say to somebody that the XYZ foundation or Mr. and Mrs. So and So have given us a substantial grant based on our ability to raise a like amount of money. So many of these schools, I think people wonder whether they're going to stay alive and whether they're going to grow. If a building program has funds for half of the project committed from ten different sources on a matching gift basis, I think it adds a lot of impetus to the parents and the board of directors to go out and raise money, and I think it opens a lot of doors for them.

Morris : In other words, you're thinking that private donors in a sense are relying on your judgment?

Gillette: I'm not saying so much relying on our judgment, because I think most of these--certainly private education--have a good number of people who feel that it should survive. But I think it's a question of: if I give five hundred dollars to this two million dollar building program, isit going to be significant? Are they ever going to get it off the ground?

To see that they have a million dollars committed, and if they raise another million that automatically gives them a total of two, that shows a pretty good chance that the project -is going to come to fruition. I think it's a big help.

Morris: Would it also be an efficient use--take less time? A question I've come across repeatedly is the amount of time it takes smallish organizations to raise money.

Gillette: Yes, there's no question about that. 5. MIRANDA LUX FOUNDATION

Expanding the Concept of Manual Arts

Gillette: As we get into the Miranda Lux Foundation, here we probably put in more blood, sweat and tears by far than any of the other three foundations I'm on; just because by the nature of that foundation's giving pattern, you're driven into very unusual projects.

Morris : I see. Tell me about the blood, sweat and tears.

Gillette: Mrs. Lux left this money to a foundation with very specific instruc- tions that it should be expended for young people from kindergarten through high school to learn the manual arts.

Morris: That fascinated me. I suddenly realized that Miranda Lux was a person. The way it appears in the paper, it ' s Lux (~iranda), and it's always puzzled me.

Gillette: What her interest was in manual arts, I have no idea, and I don't think anybody on the board does.

Morris: It 's interesting that it should be located here in San Francisco when, as you said, the family has been in cattle and ran,ching in the Valley.

Gillette: Yes, but throughout the whole of California. I think the story goes that Mr. Miller was able to run cattle from the northern border to the southern border and keep the cattle on his own property every night. I mean, they were very, very substantial landowners.

I didn't ever know Mrs. Lux, but I've known the Miller side of the family for probably the last thirty years, and I know their whole heritage was here in San Francisco, even though they were heavily involved in agriculture in the Los Banos area.

Morris: Are the Miller family and the Lux family related? Gillette: No, I don't believe so; I think they were just business associates. I couldn't tell you where the interests of the Luxes have gone.

Morris : But Miranda survives in the foundation.

Gillette : Yes, this is right. I know no Luxes.

Morris : It did sound as if there were more time required here. The board gets together every couple of months?

Gillette: We meet at least every other month. And here, once again, we've had to be very careful to get good legal counsel on what manual arts encompasses, because Mrs. Lux undoubtedly was thinking purely of woodworking and machine shop. On advice of counsel, we've been able to broaden that scope to a reasonable degree.

Morris : Do you have an attorney who is knowledgeable about this kind of thing among the trustees?

Gillette: No, no. We had outside counsel for that. The age area was a little bit indefinite, and so we've--

Morris : You've gotten down to kindergarten and nursery school.

Gillette: Yes, and up to eighteen. And we try very assiduously not to violate that age. If any projects involve anybody over eighteen, then we will only consider a percentage; if they're one third under eighteen, then maybe we will consider donating one third to that particular endeavor. But we try very cautiously to abide by the kindergarten through eighteen, but no older.

Morris : Tell me the line of thinking which permitted the expansion to the kindergarten age, the pre-schoolersb

Gillette: I could dig it out here if I had to--the bylaws--but it goes from kindergarten, I believe it says, through high school. The "through high schoolw--I think that's why the attorney came down with the eighteen, because certainly we've got a lot of kids that go well beyond eighteen trying to get through high school nowadays. So you could jiggle it around a little, but we haven't .

Morris: She must have been a very progressive-minded lady. The concept of manual arts for little bitty kids is still a great crusade.

Gillette: It is--no question about it.

Morris : It must have been revolutionary when she wrote it up in her will. Gillette: It really has been a very intriguing foundation to be on because, as you know, the minorities of all types need help, and they can certainly stand a tremendous amount of help in the learning of manual arts. We have been involved in Youth For Servi,ce, in setting up a welding shop which I've been very enthusiastic about; because if you can teach young people how to weld, they've got a reasonable chance of getting some type of a job.

Public Schools, Community Agencies, and Unions

Gillette: We've supported the San Francisco public schools to a large degree-- electronics labs, photographic labs, graphic arts, and nursery school.. We've supported the Exploratorium. We have equipped business education labs for a couple of the Catholic churches to teach young girls to type, take shorthand, run calculating machines, and things of this type. The scope of manual training has gone into a few different types of frontiers.

In the kindergarten age, we've been working on a project with the YWCA here in Chinatown to try and see what could be done about integrating the Chinese into the American way of life--learning how to count at a very early age in English rather than in Chinese, learning how to draw, and colors, and things of this type. How much impact we're making on some of these projects at that level I think we all have some questions about.

Anybody who comes along with a--I was going to say "reasonably substantial," but that is not true; we've taken on two or three groups that we've just kind of said: well, we hope they're there tomorrow and we hope that the welding equipment will not be stolen next week.

You really have to rely more on who is going to put the program together, who is going to teach. If this happens to be an individual who has a lot of youth charisma, we '11 take a gamble that he '11 interest fifteen kids down in the Mission to get involved in a body shop or a welding shop and stay with it long enough.

Morris : Does Mr. Kramer screen all of these, or do you ever go out yourself and talk to some of these people?

Gillette: No, no, no. He screens them preliminarily, but we do go out and visit as a total board and on an individual basis. We've been very dis- satisfied with the manner in which the public schools have been treating some of the grants that we've given to them. I unfortunately couldn't make the meeting, but the other four trustees went out and sat down with the school board and said: now, here we've equipped Gillette : all these laboratories and you're not maintaining them and you're letting them die. Are you going to put them in the school budget?

Of course, they've got problems, too, but I think we've got to resolve whether the Foundation can continue to support the San Francisco public schools, which is a great vehicle to get into this manual arts type of education. But if the city can't afford to maintain these grants--

Morris : You mean carry on a project after you've put in three or four years?

Gillette : The maintenance of them, yes. We set up a whole electronics lab and we find that it's not being maintained; there's no budget for a teacher. They have gotten into a particular busing program so that now the concentrations of children in that particular school don't have any electronics interest. Why can't the lab be moved to another area?

Morris : That sounds like a good question.

Gillette: Well, we've asked 'em! It's a pretty tough one to keep your finger on; it's kind of like quicksilver.

Morris : I would think so. Public schools seem to be a very knotty problem from anybody's point of view.

Gillette: Well, you've got so many diverse interests. They've got an elected board now, so that you get turnover, there's not that much continuity; we've had trouble holding a superintendent here; and you get tangled up in an awful lot of red tape dealing with the public schools. But we've stuck with it for a good number of years, basically because we do feel that you get an awful lot of bang for your money if they will use the equipment our grants buy.

Morris : Yes. I was interested that Youth For Service was one of the Lux grantees. Had you any contacts with the Rosenberg Foundation about the early days of Youth For Service? Were you aware of those early projects?

Gillette: No. I think our original contact was that Orville Luster got in touch with Larry Kramer. I had known him slightly through some of my activities with UBAC. But here, once again, is a dynamic individual; you can just be with him for fifteen or twenty minutes and you know that if anybody's goingtomake something go, he's got the best chance. I think that what he's done with that Youth For Service is absolutely fantastic in this city. I hate to see him leave. But they're carrying on.

Morris : Yes. And he's going to be doing something else similar, presumably. Gillette: Oh, sure. But I hope this project doesn't go down the drain, because it's a tremendous vehicle if you can stimulate young kids, and particularly ones that have dropped out of school, to come back and learn mathematics and learn English. If they can get to just this level, then they can start becoming welders and electricians and plumbers.

And, of course, the other problem that you have in this area we're in is that you've got to be very careful that you don't train plumbers.

Morris : There aren't going to be any jobs for plumbers?

Gillette: There aren't going to be any jobs for plumbers. They can't get in the union. So, when we get into these trade types of programs, we try to get the recipient to involve labor.

Morris : I see--at -his board level.

Gillette: Yes. If labor will say: if you train ten pipe fitters to an adequate level, we'll get 'em jobs or we'll get 'em apprenticeships in our union.

Unless you have this type of tie, I think you frustrate more than help young people. And so, on a number of our projects, we've said: now, we're wholeheartedly behind this, but will you involve labor to be sure that what we're doing is not destroying kids rather than helping kids.

Morris: Do you by any chance have a union executive on your Miranda Lux board?

Gillette: No, I don't think we run into this problem that much, only on specific types of projects. I mean, a lot of our money going to the city, we don't have this particular worry. If you're teaching kids how to handle plants and become nurserymen, the photographic lab-- we've done quite a bit in the carpentry areas. So you don't need it. It's only in specific areas that you see a tremendous desire to get kids into a particular field,. and then you find out that it's not that easy to break through the union ranks. As a consequence, unless we get that support from labor on that particular project, we ~on't do it, because there's nothing worse than teaching a kid to be a great mathematician and then he goes out and finds he can't get a job. Very frustrating. 6. THE FOUNDATION COMMUNITY

Board Members and Other San Francisco Foundations

Morris: One thing that's interested me in looking at these foundations as a group is that all three that I researched--and I wonder if it's true of Hills also--have remarkably dedicated boards. The board members seem to have been on for eight, ten years or more.

Gillette: I think in this regard most of us have had associations with the benefactor. Eddie Hills didn't ask me to go on that board, but I knew Eddie Hills. I think one of the great enjoyments I've had in San Francisco is to know some of the generation ahead of me.

Morris: Remarkably fine people.

Gillette: I feel very strongly that they were very helpful, very kind to me--and from basically just a friendship standpoint, I feel that this is something I want to do and that they would like to have done. A great many times you'll have to make your decisions a little bit on: is that what he really wanted to do, or is that something that he would really approve of our supporting? This can't be binding on us, but I do think it gives you a little better orientation.

Morris: It's something that somebody who knew the original person who set up the fund can do that nobody else can do?

Gillette: I think this is right. On this Harvey Sorensen Foundation, our president was really Harvey's, I would say, closest personal friend, and this was Karl Wente. Through my association with Mr. Sorensen, Karl Wente became one of my very closest friends. Probably a good forty years older, but if I wanted any counsel, I could go over and ask Uncle Karl to give me a little help.

I think he gave us a lot of orientation as we were starting out with the Sorensen Foundation on what Harvey would like to do for kids. That's why we got basically oriented towards young people, even though we don't have that much money to play around with. Morris : Have any of the boards gotten involved, either themselves or with questions from outside,as to the boards' composition and representation and the responsiveness to the community issue?

Gillette: No.

Morris : I gather that Rosenberg and the San Francisco Foundation, for instance, have had some challenges from the community, as it were, that they should have minorities or women or both on their boards.

Gillette: Of course, their giving patterns are so all-inclusive that I should think that they would need a somewhat broader base than we really require. As you can see, most of our giving patterns are pretty well dictated by the foundation. Granted, we have limited ourselves on the Dean Witter Foundation to specific areas of Mr. Witter's interest, but most of the others have been--

Morris : The pattern was there--

Gillette : The pattern is kind of there.

Morris : --in the documents.

Gillette : So it's a questions of: as long as we can screen to that pattern, we're not going out and seeking projects. I think the Rosenberg gets into a lot of very experimental types of grants. We don't get ourselves involved that much.

Morris : This is why I asked about Youth For Service. Rosenberg gave them a number of grants when it was just getting started, and then Lux gave them a grant later on.

Gillette : Just getting off the ground. We don't get that much involved.

Morris : I wondered if you keep an eye on, for instance, Rosenberg to see how some of their grants work out, and does this give you some clues if their grantees later apply to you?

Gillette : Larry Kramer would know a little bit, because he sees the permanent directors at Rosenberg and San Francisco and Irvine foundations, which are kind of the heart--our three big foundations here in San Francisco. He keeps himself pretty current, so that I think he has a feel. But, no, I would say most of these come in as direct solici- tations; we are not trying to weed through every grant that Rosenberg makes to see if they might fit ours.

Morris : The other way around is from the grantee point of view. As you said, Irvine and San Francisco and Rosenberg are probably the most visible, and that would be where a new organization would go first because they heard about it. Gillette: You practically have to.

Morris: And Rosenberg, like your organizations, does not normally go in for more than two or three years, and then a grantee has to go look somewhere else for some money.

Gillette: That is true.

Evaluating Results

Gillette: Rosenberg is also equipped to-follow, to be sure that the monies are expended properly, so that they can give to projects that don't have the complete blessing of IRS yet. We have to be very careful. If we make an individual grant to a young man who wants to research the shrimp in Timbuktu, we've got to substantiate that that money was properly expended completely for the project, that here were the final results. The cost and time consumed and chasing--we can't do it. Rosenberg can.

Morris : Do you, in general, get back what you consider adequate reports as to how the money was spent and how the project worked out?

Gillette : Absolutely. I mentioned the shrimp--I think it was Trout Unlimited that found a shrimp down in Chile that had just been wonderful feed for trout--

Morris : You really did fund a shrimp project!

Gillette: Yes.

Morris : Marvelous.

Gillette : Gee, I think we gave them all of $2,500 to retain this biologist and bring the shrimp up from Chile and do a laboratory study on them. They had a little pilot project at one point.

Morris : To see if you could grow these shrimp up here?

Gillette : Yes, grow the shrimp up here for feed for our trout. But they found out that they wiped out everything else in the stream! The shrimp were going to multiply and be good feed, but it was taking away so much of the other invironment, it would have had a dreadful effect on our streams. So, the result was: don't bring the shrimp up from Chile. But we felt that that was a good project in nature conservancy.

Morris: Even though the answer is "no." Gillette: It was all negative. But we do try to follow through and get reports, even from these agencies that have complete protection from the IRS. We want to be sure our money is being properly channeled.

Morris : So you feel that you do get adequate reports back from grants made, even though you're not sure what kind of overall impact some of them have ?

Gillette: The overall impact--we mentioned that with respect to young children. I think you could debate that from now until doomsday and not really come up with a proper solution. I mean, you might look at a group of five four-year-olds and say: you really taught them how to be wonderful artists and turned them on to become color-oriented and drawing oriented. I might look at them and say: I don't think they' 11 ever make it. [~aughter1

Morris : But it's valuable to do, anyhow.

Gillette: Yes. Most of these foundations, when we get into these very unusual little projects, were only doing them for one or two years. If they're going to keep them going, they're going to have to get other money sources. We'll get them off the ground so that they can get a track record, and if they've got a good enough track record they should be able to get money from other sources.

I think the Point Reyes Bird Observatory was just a perfect example--their involvement in the Farallon Islands. They were having trouble just being able to take that island over from the Coast Guard. And for us to be able to support them for three years, and on the matching gift basis, so that they could go out and get other people interested in it--and we told them it was only going to be three years.

Morris: They knew they had that breathing spell.

Gillette: They've got that breathing spell. They've got three years to see if they can make this a viable enterprise, and they've done it. I can attest to it; I've been all the way out there, and it's a miserable ship ride. [~au~hter]And it's a miserable rock, too--windy and foggy

Morris: Made you glad you left the navy?

Gillette: No, no. But it was very interesting. It's certainly not a place you'd want to build your condominium and live the rest of your life. Regulatory and Economic Concerns

Morris : You've mentioned the IRS a couple of times. When they passed the Tax Reform Act in '69, did that make major changes in the way these foundat ions function?

Gillette : No, but we just have to be exceedingly cautious that we are living by every letter of the law. Fundamentally, this is a question of being sure that you're distributing all of your income each year or the four, five, six percent of your net worth, whichever is the greater.

Morris : Did that mean any changes in the size or the number of grants?

Gillette: No. All of these foundations that I've been on, I think we've been just doing the same thing--I would say that probably we expend on the Dean Witter Foundation about a hundred and forty percent of our income.

Morris : That's not usual. What's the reason for that?

Gillette : We are inuring income from auxiliary trusts that Dean Witter set up. And according to the legal opinions, the grants that we get each year from these trusts could be capital, but we have been treating them basically as income.

Morris : Because the corpus remains in those auxiliary trusts?

Gillette : This is right. They were meant to be capital gifts to build our Foundation up gradually. We have not been letting the Foundation build up, except in the stock market. We've always felt that the type of projects we wanted to get into, we were well advised to go a little bit over our hundred percent. We've been way overboard on that one (~eanWitter).

Morris : That's interesting. Has anybody from Washington called you up to say: my, what a fine job you're doing. How did you manage to accomplish this great thing? [~aughter1

Gillette: NO, no.

Morris : I would think that the fiscal aspects would be fairly complicated. Who manages the portfolios on a foundation?

Gillette : Hills, of course, is basically all in Hills Brothers stock, so we don't do anything there; but the other three, we have investment counsel.

Morris: Are they the same, by any chance? Gillette: No, no. We use a New York firm on the Dean Witter one, and the Miranda Lux uses a local firm here. We don't have one on the Sorensen--I'm wrong; we have one now on the Sorensen, too. They're all three different.

Morris: I'm not an expert in balance sheets. However, it looked on the IRS forms as though there was a fair amount of turnover in the securities held. I wondered if this is at the investment counsel's judgment of what the market is doing, or if there are board discussions on--?

Gillette: We basically formulate a very general pattern for our investment counsel, and they more or less buy and sell securities which we review with them after the fact. But they make investment changes based on their judgment and in conformance with the general investment pattern that the board might set up. I don't know where you've seen big changes. Certainly on the Dean Witter Foundation we haven't had unusual turnover there.

Morris: This would be eight or nine years ago.

Gillette: Certainly no action on the Dean Witter eight or nine years ago. I would think that you might have seen some more than normal activity on the Sorensen and the Miranda Lux only from the standpoint that we inherited a philosophy which was pretty much towards as much income as you possibly could get, and this put us into bonds.

Most of us had the feeling that, as this inflationary spiral kept approaching and consuming us, that probably bonds weren't the answer to all needs of a foundation. This does not mean to say that we don't have some bonds in all of these foundations, but I think that, even though there are good returns from bonds, you're deteriorating your capital gradually. If you're looking at a bond payable in the year 2000, it's going to be a lot different dollar than we're talking about today .

Morris : In other words, the thinking has been generally to preserve the corpus so that the foundations will be able to continue in business.

Gillette: Yes. But, from time to time, you wonder--this is a philosophical discussion, and I think we've had it on practically every one of these foundations: would we be better advised in our current society to support beyond our normal income? Actually liquidate the foundations over an extended period of time, because, you know--

Morris: Because the needs are so great at the moment?

Gillette: --if you have a revolution in twenty years, then you haven't used any of your money; it all goes down the tube. There are a lot of areas that need support in the current environment we're living in. Gillette: We haven't come to this conclusion--that we're going to fold up our tents and try to get rid of all our money in five years just because we think the society's going to pot--but we have discussed it.

Morris: Well, the other side of that might be: if we plunge all the assets now into what we decide collectively is the greatest need, maybe we can postpone or avoid or avert the revolution. Is that a part of it?

Gillette: Oh, sure. I said this was a very philosophical type of discussion.

Morris: I gather that several local, personal foundations have made the choice of turning over all their assets to the community foundation. Has that been part of the discussion?

Gillette: No, I don't think we've come to that position, fundamentally because these four foundations all have very specific orientations. I don't think the San Francisco Foundation would take the Miranda Lux if we wanted them to, because of the involvement in these nickel and dime types of gifts that are delightful to give because they are seed money and exciting little projects--but I think they're so small that San Francisco [~oundation] would just be swamped.

Morris : In terms of their administrative time?

Gillette: Yes.

Community Involvement

Gillette: We can devote a half a day or a whole day once in a while to researching one of these projects, going out and looking at them. I think if you get an unusual foundation such as this one (LUX) in particular, you've got to have pretty dedicated trustees that are going to give a lot of free time.

Morris: That presupposes that you're all at a stage in your own careers where you can take a day or two off every now and then to do this.

Gillette: True, Gabrielle. But I don't know. Maybe I've just been fortunate, but I've always worked for people who wanted you to have some community involvement. We don't abuse it, but most of our board meetings are held at lunch time, so they spill over till two o'clock. I've been doing this ever since I was thirty-three, and I certainly encourage most of my young people to get involved in va~iouscommunity activities. Morris: Do you think it has feedback, then, into the way they function for the company, or affects company judgment?

Gillette: Sure it does. It broadens their base, and whether it's all just coming back to Johnson and Higgins is really immaterial. I think it matures people, it makes them better thinkers; they get to know a broad section of the community, and when they've got an unusual problem they can pick up the telephone and call Joe Smith, whom they were on the board with five years ago, and say: Joe, this is right up your alley; would you give me a little counsel?

Morris: Either on a community issue or a company issue?

Gillette: Community issue or private issue--personal, business, what have you. This all helps to broaden an individual's basic foundation. I also think that a service firm, such as ours, should be giving something to the community.

Morris: You said when we talked on the phone that occasionally you went to some of the Council on Foundations meetings.

Gillette: The only ones I have ever attended have been when they had a regional meeting here. We have Larry Kramer go to them pretty consistently.

Morris: I was wondering if you had much contact, then, with the local foundation people, either the boards or staff.

Gillette: I know most of the board of the San Francisco Foundation, most of the board of the Irvine Foundation. I've never had much association with Rosenberg. But this was not through foundations--these were just personal friends.

Morris : Yes, I would assume that. If a board member of Miranda Lux and a board member of San Francisco Foundation happen to be seated next to each other at a dinner party, do they talk shop? You know: what's going on at your foundation? Or: have you people given any thought to what's happening in schools?

Gillette: No, I would not say that on just an informal occasion like that we would ; at least I haven't.

Morris: Is Mr. Kramer a member of this brown bag group of local foundation staff people that meets regularly?

Gillette: I'm quite certain he is.

Morris: Has he ever commented on how they function?

Gillette: He keeps us pretty well oriented with the community thinking. We have never published annual reports, and this is becoming more and Gillette : more a thorn in a lot of people's sides. We are putting out an annual report this year on the Dean Witter Foundation. I think it's somewhat of a waste of money, but you've got so many people who want to know what you're trying to do. We've finally come to the conclusion that--

Morris : Let's try it?

Gillette : Well, no. It's awfully hard to get the giving patterns defined to everybody. I think this is one of the principal reasons that I was particularly interested in having an annual report for the Dean Witter Foundation: maybe we can get a little bit more visibility so that we can cut down all of this expense. These charities must spend twenty percent of their budget on postage!

I mean, the type of mailings we get, they just have to be covering the whole United States. I suppose there's some statistical thing that if you spend 154 for each piece that goes out, you've got a chance of getting back 164.

Morris : I think there are some studies or statistics on that kind of probability.

Gillette : I know there are. It's a pretty expensive way to raise money. I don't have much sympathy with it.

Morris : For the time and effort spent, you do better if you do get involved in personal contacts?

Gillette : Absolutely. If somebody has any orientation towards any of these foundations and feels that they've got a project that conceivably might fit, they can call up probably any one of the trustees and have an audience.

Morris : You don't object to having the initial contact come through to the trustees rather than--

Gillette : I don't get that many, and a lot of the ones I get I automatically see that they're not going to fit at all and I'll turn them off; or I see that they might fit but I'm not going to have time this week or next week to devote to it, so I'll turn them over to Kramer and have him research them. I would say that probably to my attention on the Dean Witter Foundation I get someplace between ten and fifteen letters a week.

Morris : Are those primarily from local organizations?

Gillette: NO--every place. Morris: That's interesting. It sounds like there's some kind of anational service which provides mailing lists.

Gillette: There probably is, or they come out and get them state by state. It to me is the most frustrating thing, because I hate not to answer correspondence. But the volume we get--therefs just no way.

Morris: Did you have any sense that there is any overlap between what the Dean Witter Foundation gets in the way of requests and Sorensen and Miranda Lux?

Gillette: I suppose there is some, but I fundamentally am only the president of the Dean Witter Foundation and I'm just trustee on the others; so we're not cross-referencing that much. I'm sure you must get, you know, some little mission in Tennessee who has to get us all.

Federal Grants and Tax Structure

Morris: That's all the questions I had. Are there any things that have either interested you or concerned you about your foundation experience that you would like to include in the record?

Gillette: I don't want to become involved in the controversy of whether people should be permitted to leave their money to private foundations at federal tax expense. I am so oriented towards the private enterprise system that I just can't bring myself to believe that the government should be getting any further in this area, and they're in the area of about eighty-five percent right now.

Morris: You mean eighty-five percent of the kind of--

Gillette: Well, donations. Be it reconstruction, helping the destitute--what have you, this is really what--

Morris: You're thinking of government grants in areas the foundations used to--?

Gillette: Yes, we compete, we overlap. I feel very strongly that the little inputs that we can give so many projects are doing a lot of good. I hope they are. And yet, we're not giving anything to any of these organizations that makes them self-sufficient; they've got to pull themselves up by their bootstraps a little bit. We're giving them a boost. This is what makes our country go.

Morris: Did you happen to hear or read of Kingman Brewster's speech at the Children's Hospital centennial a couple of weeks ago? Gillette : No.

Morris: He was speaking to that point. He was defining it as the independent sector--not only private hospitals, but the kinds of foundations and private philanthrophy that have worked with hospitals and similar institutions. He made the same point--in fact, even a little different one--that he thought that the importance was to continue as a kind of prod and reminder to government of alternatives and options.

Gillette: Agreed. Well taken.

Morris: Thank you very much. I'm sorry I've devoured your lunch time.

Gillette: No problem at all. I'm well off not to eat at all.

Interviewer-Editor : Gabrielle Morris Transcriber : Lee Steinback Final Typist : Judy Johnson APPENDIX - Selected Pages from A Guide Lo 'California-Foundations, Abrahams, Casson, and Daul, Common College, March, 1973.

57 Post Street, Suite 604 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 981-2966

TOTAL ASSETS June, 1972: $1,557,193 TOTAL GRANTS June, 1972: $81,959.

. CONTACT: Lawrence I. Kramer, Jr., Executive Dirbctor \r PREFERRED FORM OF CONTACT: .Telephone, mail or submittal of proposal.

FUNDING CYCLE: Proposals are reviewed on a bi-monthly basis.

PURPOSE: It is the policy of the Miranda Lux Foundation to support promising proposals for pre-school through junior college programs in the fields of pre-vocational and vocational education and training in the City of San Francisco.

TRUSTEES: F. Paschal Gallot; Howard Willoughby; E.S. Gillette, Jr.; Henry M. Bowles; Dwight L. Wilbur, M.D. HARVEY L. SORENSON AND MAUD C: SORENSON FOUNDATION

240 Stockton Street San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: (415) 982-7526

TOTAL ASSETS 9-30-71: $2,511,849 TOTAL GRANTS in 1971: $76,750.

CONTACT: Mr. Glaser

FUNDING CYCLE: Proposals are reviewed twice annually.

PURPOSE: Resolved, that the Foundation has limited resources for producing unrestricted income for charitable purposes. The Foundation has very limited resources available for costs of administration of the Foundation and for administering a gift program.

Resolved further, that in consideration of the Foundation's limited resources and in order to allocate those resources effectively, the following general criteria for charitable gifts shall be established:

1. The Foundation's policy is to make charitable gifts for local purposes, principally in or near the San Francisco Bay Area. 2. The Foundation's policy is to make gifts to support relatively small projects especially where modest funds will be accom- panied by substantial donations of services and will therefore have substantial impact. Large projects, where Foundation funds would not have material effect will be avoided. 3. Gifts made by the Foundation shall be in the general areas of charitable interest of the founder of the Foundation, specifically gifts relating to children, their education, and their health and to support appropriate conservation projects. 4. Wherever possible, Foundation funds should be used as "seed money1' for worthwhile projects which whould become self - sufficient within a reasonable time. 5. Wherever possible, gifts made by the Foundation shall be in support of substantial gratuitous services contributed by people actively involved in the project. 6. These policies are for the guidance of the trustees in future action and in the discretion of the trustees may be varied for any gift at any time.

NOTr 87% of the Foundation's funds are committed to hospitals.

TRUSTEES: James R. Bancroft, E.S. Gillette Jr., R.E.Heinrich, F. W. McChesney , J. Philip Coghlan. DEAN HITTER FOUNDATION

351 California Street, Room 316 San Francisco, California 94104

TOTAL ASSETS September, 1972: TOTAL GRANTS 1971-' 72 Fiscal Year :

CONTACT: Lawrence I. Kramer, Jr. c/o Kramer, Miller and Associates, Inc. 57 Post Street, Suite 604 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 981-2966

PREFERRED FORM OF CONTACT: Initial phone oall or brief letter out- lining proposal.

FUNDING CYCLE: Proposals are reviewed on a quarterly basis.

PURPOSE: The Dean Witter Foundation primarily concentrates its support in the fields of finance education and research, and conservation.

TRUSTEES: E.S. Gillette, Jr., Dean Witter, Jr., William D. Witter, Frank H. Roberts, James Bancrof t. The Bancroft Library University of California/~erkeley Regional Oral History Office

Bay Area Foundation History Series Volume IV

Charles Glock

A SOCIOLOGIST COMMENTS ON GETTING, USING, AND MAKING GRANTS

An Interview Conducted by Gabrielle Morris

@ 1976 by The Regents of the University of California TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Charles Glock

INTERVIEW HISTORY

1. UC/BERKELEY SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER

2. RED STEPHENSON AND NEIGKBORHOOD HOUSE, NORTH RICHMOND Putting Together a Funding Package Developing Community Leadership

3. STUDENT SEMINAR ON GRANT-MAKING: LEVERAGE AND SEED MONEY

4. FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCING CONTINUING EDUCATION : MAKING GRANTS FROM A WASTING TRUST

5. CONTINUING CONTACTS WITH RUTH CHANCE

6. NATIONAL FOUNDATIONS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

INDEX INTERVIEW HISTORY

Research sociologist Charles Y. Glock was interviewed early in the Foundation History project in order to test the interviewer's questions for grantees of Bay Area foundations and to preserve some of his experiences in developing proposals for grant funding within an academic institution.

The single interview was recorded on 6 May 1974 in Professor Glock's office in Barrows Hall on the UC campus, sandwiched in between visits from his students. Above middle height, dark-haired, and casual, Dr. Glock reminisced easily about a wide range of foundation-related activities.

As a graduate student he was first a volunteer at Neighborhood House in the struggling black community of North Richmond, which received a number of local foundation grants, and later he worked with Red Stephenson, also interviewed in this series, to design a university research component for evaluating the self- help programs Stephenson was running there. Glock comments on working with government and other national sources of funding that supported other research he undertook as director of the UC Survey Research Center, and also occasional conversations with Ruth Chance at the Rosenberg Foundation when she would seek advice on proposals related to his studies of changing attitudes among young people.

In discussing his views on grant-making he includes his own experience as a.trustee of a small time-limited foundation, and the seminar he has given for students responsible for allocating money from a chancellor's fund for student- initiated projects. Both of these experiences give interesting insights into the difficulties and opportunities of matching available funds to worthwhile activities, also reflected in a number of later interviews in this series.

Due to a busy teaching and research schedule, Dr. Glock was unable to find time to review the transcript of the interview until late in 1975. Then, the interviewer having arrived to collect it on a promised date, he gave a virtuoso display of concentration and thoroughness. Page by page, he worked his way through the manuscript rewording phrases he found too offhand for a University project, while the interviewer proofread another transcript beside his desk.

Interviewer-Editor

24 June 1976 Regional Oral History Off ice 486 The Bancroft Library University of California/Berkeley ÿÿ ate of Interview: 6 May 19741

1. UC/BERKELEY SURVEY RESURCH CENmR

Morris: I came to ask you about your work with Ruth Chance at Rosenberg, and any other local foundations. I'd Like to start with the project, small though it was, that you did on young adults for the Survey Re- search Center. In the early sixties?

Glock : Correct .

Morris : How did that come about?

Glock: I donrt remember exactly how it came about. What I do recall is that I was still trying to recruit faculty for the Survey Research Center; I had recruited Gertrude Selznick, paying her on soft money, and I had also become acquainted with a faculty member named Salisbury in anthropology. Somehow, in my interaction with Selznick and Salisbury, the idea of conducting a research project on young adults was born. It might have come out of Salisbury's interest in urban anthropology or in Gertrude Selznick's earlier research on youth. It is also possible that something that Ruth Chance has said about her concern about the problems of young adults stimulated me to think that there might be some support for research in this area and that I raised the possibility

with Salisbury and Selznick.. K

Morris: Had you already had contact with Ruth?

Glock: I think so. Anyway, we then asked the Rosenberg Foundation, of which Ruth was then executive director, for a grant of fifteen hundred dollars, I think it was, to support the preparation of a research proposal. A proposal was then written to conduct a survey of young adults in San Francisco under Gertrude Selznick's direction and as well to engage in more ethnographic research on young adults in different kinds of living arrangements for which SaLisbury was proposed as director. The proposal was then submitted to the Nationd Institute of Mental Health [NIMH].for support. Slock: The proposal was turned down. From what little I could gather, the turn-down was the result not so much of any opposition to the project per se, but because the NIMH had some reservations that the proposed co-principal investigators had the experience to do the project. Gertrude had just come on the Survey Center staff with a background in mathematics and philosophy, but without specific survey experience. Salisbury was a young assistant professor without much of a track record in research.

In any case, we didn't get the grant, although I still think of the project as a fine one and one which would still warrent being done today.

Morris: That proposal seemed to come just before the great wave of flower children and the other alternate life styles. I wondered if, perhaps, you had some foreknowledge of that.

Glock: No, I don't think so. Although Ruth Chance may have had some precognition of the changes on the horizon.

Well, that's all I can remember about the young adult project. In the meantime, I had gotten a half million dollars from the Anti-Defamation League for a series of studies on prejudice. Gertrude was assigned to work on one of these studies. Salisbury left to accept an appointment at McGill. 2 . RED STEPHENSON AND NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE, NORTH RICHMOND

Putting Together a FWdirig 'Package

Morris: I understand you were well-acquainted with Red Stephenson when he was building the program at Neighborhood House which received considerable Rosenberg support.

Glock: I had become acquainted with Red Stephenson in 1949-50 when I was a graduate student at Berkeley for a year. When I came back out here in 1958 to direct the Center, I looked up Red fairly soon afterwards. We began to chat about possible ways in which the Survey Research Cen- ter and his operation out at Neighborhood House, North Richmond, might collaborate.

Morris: I'm familiar with his work at Neighborhood House; I was a volunteer in their nursery school in 1963. I would like to know about his approach to life, because I think he would be an important person to talk with for this project .

Glock: When I came to Berkeley in 1949-50, I was active in the Quaker movement, although not a Quaker either by upbringing or conversion. When I arrived in Berkeley, I went to the Friends meeting house and it was there that I met Red.

He was then already running something akin to a settlement house on a volunteer basis out in Richmond, and he involved me in weekend work-ins there. It happened that I met my wife here that year, and she went out, too. We would paint houses together; we still think our doing this together and liking it and each other was a major stimulus to our getting married.

Morris: Yes, that would be a nice sociable way to become acquainted.

Glock: When we came back, about ten years later, I looked up Red, although by then I wasn't involved with the Quakers any more. We chatted, and I learned that he was still in Richmond heading up Neighborhood House; which by then had become a highly significant social agency in the area. Glock; I was very sympathetic with what Red was trying to do, having had a longstanding interest in minority group problems. Red and I kept meeting from time to time and eventually we contrived the idea that maybe we could design some kind of project which would combine action with research, and involve Neighborhood House and the Survey Research Center. As a consequence, we developed a proposal whose title, as I recall, was "~aisingthe Potential of Underprivileged Youth17'l

Red had a connection with the Gerbode family in San Francisco and they provided the seed money to get the proposal written. me proposal was successful this time and generated a grant of several hundreds of thousands of dollars from NIMH. What with subsequent renewal grants, we must have gotten half a million dollars altogether-- between the two of us.

Morris : Did the Rosenberg Foundation and Ruth Chance play a role in getting the proposal written and financed?

Glock: I can't recall for sure whether or not we got any money from Rosenberg to help in the proposal writing. Af'ter we'd developed our ideas, I did talk with Ruth Chance about them. Maybe she gave us a little more money at that time. She could perhaps tell you for sure. In any case, I do recall that she recommended that we submit the proposal to the Ford Foundation, which we did. There was a site visit, at which the director of the Foundation urban programs was present as well as two or three of his assistants. I only vaguely remember the site visit. It lasted two days and involved lengthy discussions both at the University and at Neighborhood House.

What we wanted to do essentially was to systematically add to the program at Neighborhood House to upgrade the whole range of things they were doing. Would you like to look at the proposal? . I!m sure I have a copy around someplacel [copy in Foundation Series Papers. ]

Morris: Yes.

Glock: Anyway, the Ford Foundation said they were very interested in the project~but not in having it done in Richmond--thinking it wasn't a large enough community.

Morris: Was this before the Economic Opportunity legislation had been enacted?

Glock: Yes. This was in the early sixties. In any case, neither Red nor I were of a mind to undertake the project elsewhere and this ended our negotiations with Ford.

We then rewrote the proposal somewhat and submitted it to NIMH. Glock: We receiyed an initial grant for three years, as I recall, which was subsequently extended for another two or three years. If you need all these details we could go up to the files,

Morris: It's more the process that I am interested in. You said that Ruth suggested that you send it to Ford?

Glock: Ruth was very positive about the proposal and about Red. She acted as an intermediary in bringing us together with Paul Ylvisaker, of the Ford Foundation. She encouraged him to support us. Recently, she mentioned to me that she felt that many of the ideas pursued in programs that Ford later sponsored-in their Grey Areas projects had been stimulated by the Foundation' s exposure to our project plans.

Morris : Why do you suppose Ford settled on Oakland? Because, at about this time or a couple of years later, they put several million dollars into various programs for the black community in Oakland.

Glock: Now that you mention it, we were asked by them if we would consider re- formulating the project to be done in Oakland.

Morris : You, the Survey Center, or you and Red together?

Well, both. But more the SRC, because we were going to be engaged in evaluation and Ford was interested in having an evaluation of what they planned to do in Oakland, I was uninterested because the whole project had been designed to help Red. Moreover, it was only after the whole project was designed that I began to find people to work on it and they were unwilling to see it shifted to Oakland also.

Ford eventually put a lot of money into Oakland. In fact, I became a member of the advisory committee to the evaluation of their program.

What happened next? As I recall, the proposal was submitted finally with Martin Wolins from the School of Social Welfare and I named as co- prdncipal investigat0r.s: he to oversee the action program in Richmond and I to supervise the research.* Alan Wilson of the School of Education was hired to be my associate. At the time he did not have a regular [faculty] appointment yet, so he couldn 't serve as principal investiga- tor. Wolins then hired Harry Specht, a social worker, to work on the action program along with Red Stephensbn.

*A copy of this proposal, "~ealizingthe Potential of Underprivileged Youth,"' dated October, 1961, is in the Foundation Series papers. In 1974, UC students continued to refer to it as a sample of a well-designed, well-written proposal that was funded. Morris: In the field, actually?

Glock: Yes, Specht was not on the faculty he was just hired to be paid by the project . He was brought out from New York, as I recall. At the time, Harry was to the left of StephensQn about social welfare issues, which became increasingly a source of strain as the project moved hBedd.

Morris: What sort of strain?

Developing Community Leadership

Glock: Well, there were clashes about the philosophy which ought to guide the action program and conflict because Harry and Red came to dislike each other's approach and style of work. Specht believed that blacks should have power; Stephenson was more intergrationist in his views.

Morris : Power in what sense?

Glock: Programs for blacks should be run by blacks was Harry 's philosophy. Red wanted leadership to be shared by whites and blacks whether programs serviced blacks only, whites only, or both. This was really the source of much of the difficulty. Wilson tried his best to remain objective , but his personal philosophy was somewhat closer to Specht 's and this showed. As time went on, Red found himself more and more a- lone in his position since Wolins and I also came to lean more to Harry's than to Red's position on many issues.

Morris: And the pressures built up.

Glock: Yes. I kept trying to keep the two sides happy. But it became an increasingly impossible situation for StephensQn and he decided to pull out not only from the project but also as director of Neighborhood House. I went to the banquet that honored him; it was a great but sad affair.

Morris: Oh, dear.

Glock: Red, understandably, was sort of bitter for a while. I must admit I've never managed to get back to the kind of friendly relations we had during the early part of our relationship. It is not that we are unfriendly, simply less friendly. I haven't seen Red for a year or two. He got a job as regional airector of Planned Parenthood, and he's recovered from the experience very well, I think. Morris : Is this the Oakland Planned Parenthood?

Glock: His office is in Oakland,although I have the impression he is regional director of Planned Parenthood.*

Morris : How did the NIMH-Wded project :ih LRichmond turn out?

Glock: As I remember, they did refinance it once. It was originally a three year grant, and then we asked for two more years.

Morris: Was the extension so that you could do an evaluation?

Glock: Partly,but also to carry on the action program.

It wasn 't the happiest of projects . Not only did we experience difficulties on the action side, but this created problems on the research side as well. Moreover, we ran into extraordinary difficulties in the field. We had to hire and train large numbers of interviewers. In the middle of the study we ran into a large amount of cheating on the part of some of the interviewing staff. This meant throwing out a considerable amount of data and recollecting it. Questionable interviewers had been paid and there was a threat of lawsuits when they were let go.

Morris: The ivory tower research life is not all that peaceful. Did Ruth help in the negotiations with NIMH?

Glock: 9 d6n!t recall whether she did or not.

Morris: That's interesting that a government agency would take it on when Ford would not.

Glock: In the end, I should add, some good things came out of the project: a brilliant book on delinquency by one of Wilson's associates, Travis Hirschi, and a number of monographs, including one by Wilson, which have been well received.

Morris: Did Ruth Chance play a role in the project once it got underway?

Glock: No, I don't think so. She was involved when the Ford Foundation people were here, and she did offer creative advice in the writing and rewriting of the proposal. I've always been friendly with her. She's

*Mr. Stephenson's office later moved to San Francisco; late in 1975 he went into business in Santa Rosa. Glock : called me up for advice a few times, and I've done the same with her. We see each other, but while she was with the Rosenberg Foundation I received no large grants from her, just the seed money I've already mentioned. We've stayed very friendly. 3. STUDENT SEMINAR ON GRANT-MAKING: LEVERAGE AND SEED MONEY

Glock: Indeed, I've had her over as a visiting lecturer to a class.

Morris: What course did she talk to?

Glock: Well, it was a student-initiated course. I was chairman of the department -- this was late in '69.

A group of students who were responsible for administering a Regents' fund for student-initiated projects asked if they could get a field studies credit for the administrative job they were doing. I said I was open to the idea but only if they would participate in an informal seminar on the subject of grantsmanship -- about standards of granting, how do you get leverage with small amounts of money, etc.

They agreed and a seminar was organized to discuss how maximum leverage might be obtained with the kinds of funds that the Regents were making available. Ruth came, over and lectured to one of the sessions. It was an interesting experience for her and for the students.

Morris : How did she like the students, and how did they like her?

Glock: She called me the next day and said she had had a good experience. From the students' viewpoint, she was a great success.

Morris : This was the board that actually administered %hat Regents ' fund. They were the ones who decided which student projects would be funded?

Glock: Yes, a student board.

Morris: Did they have the final say?

Glock: They had a university paid staff person who did the contract work for them and handled administrative matters and there were two faculty member, advisers. I don't think that the faculty members ever met with them, however. Essentially, they were overseen, but I think they had control over decisions. They gave away quite a bit of money. I sat in Glock : on 8oxn.e of the meetings where they were deciding about how to spend the money, X remember.

Morris : What kinds of miteria did they use?

Glock : Well, it was obvious that one criterion was balance -- for example, if ,money was given for a black project they were anxious to give money for a chicano project, that sort of thing.

They also operated on the principle of leverage. They felt that there's no use giving to projects that had no leverage possibilities. They were also given to projects that looked like they might go beyond the small amount of support they could give and become models for something else.

But there was also a lot of politics involved. Who's friend had submitted what? Ts he a good guy or bad? TAe~e",e~e~q~estions'7thatwere raised. And, as I said, how to-balance the different political and ethnic backgrounds of the different applicants. The committee was very oriented toward the Left. This meant that there was always concern about how to keep the Regents from getting so upset that they would --

Morris : Blow the whistle on the whole thing?

Glock : Yes, there was always concern: if we finance this will it get the Re- gents up in arms? The concern did not, however, inhibit the group from supporting a lot of far out things.

Morris : How does leverage differ from seed money?

Glo ck : Well, leverage means: can you change anything with it? Can a project change anything, or will it just leave everything untouched? The whole notion is: here you can help five people this year, period, versus could you do something that might produce some structural change of a permanent kind which would help a lot of people from here on in.

To say it another way, is.this .projebt going to just be of immediate help to these people that the program serves or does the program have the kind of potential for leverage that it might influence the system to the point of getting the system to adopt the thing. In which case, its impact would be much broader.

Morris : Was this what the student board was in favor of?

Glock : I thing this came out of the seminar. The argument was advanced and discussed that when you have small mounts of money you probably have to consider whether you can effect leverage; it makes sense to vote for Glock; the project that has the leverage Qn the system, rather than the proj- $ctt that just helps a few people per year. In other words, if you've got fellowship money for ten students this year and there's no money for the students next year, you haven 't really accomplished much. You've helped those ten students, but you haven't really affected much more than that. Whereas, if you could find some way to convince the system that they ought to put more .money into fellowships, you could then get many fellowships -- I'm not sure this is a terribly good example, but I hope I'm communicating the principle. $ . FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCING CONTINUING EDUCATION : MAKING GWTS FROM A WASTING TRUST,

Morris: You said that you had worked with a small foundation. Is this the one, or have you been involved in another local foundation?

Glock: No, I've been involvedwith FACE, the Foundation for Advancing Continuing Education. This was set up by a woman named Skye Goffman, the deceased wife of the well known sociologist.

She committed suicide back in 1964 or '65. Setting up the foundation was part of her will. She was interested in having the Foundation support programs that would function to upgrade education for minority youth in Berkeley, She was very fond of Berkeley, had been very active in the whole integration of the schools. In fact, that's how I got to know her pretty well.

I was one of the people named in the will to be on the board. I was one of two academics on the board, the other being a woman. There was somewhat over $100,000 in the bequest. It was agreed early in the game that we wanted to give the money away and not be one of these foundations that --

Morris : Goes on indefinitely.

Glock: Yes, with only five thousand dollars or so a year to give away.

So we went into operation. We had SkW"i3 brother and her ex- husband to a meeting to get their feelings about what she would have liked the Foundation to do. We read and reread her will for the same purpose. Since we all knew her, we shared some personal insights about what she had in mind. Announcing our existence opened the flood-gates. We received a-fantastic number of requests. I was terribly impressed at the number of people in and around Berkeley who were devoting their lives to trying to help other people.

We gave quite a bit of money to the Berkeley school system; projects that they couldn't accmodate in their budget. We were influenced to some extent to give to things that members of the board had firsthand knowledge of. At the same time we spent a lot of time meeting and talking with applicants. Mostly, the principle of giving was whether Glock: we Jud@;edit a worthy project* We liked leverage ;type projects and projects which, if they worked, :might be taken over by the schools or some othe~pvblic agency.

We just had our last -meeting, about a ,month ago. All the money's gone. We haven't quite gone out of business, because it turns out that the will says that if the son dies before age thirty-five, without being married, then whatever has been willed to him will go into the Foundation, So the foundation is presently, I guess, in escrow.

Morris: You still exist as a legal entity, but you don't have any money.

Glock : Correct.

While we were functioning, I functioned pretty much like the other members of the group and tried not to let my sociological biases show through. I did persuade the Foundation to give a project in which my wife was involved a small grant at one point. She runs a nmsery school in a black church under the auspices of the Berkeley Council of Churches. They run three or four nursery schools in minority group neighborhoods. Her school, as I recall, got about two hundred dollars a year for four years.

Morris: That didn't bother anybody as long as you didn't ask for more and more things that you were obviously especially interested in?

Glock: In this case, one of the women board members knew my wife, and had in fact visited the nursery school and felt it was really doing a lot of good with a very small amount of money. She really took the lead in getting my wife the grant but I acquiesced. - - -

I would guess that maybe a third of the mney was spent for projects that some member of the bard had a personal interest in but most was not.

Things like the following would happen. I remember a woman calling me up about support for a library on women!Sf. affairs. She said that a friend of mine met her and said: Well, call Charlie Glock, he knows about raising money..' I put her in touch with FACE and she then submitted a proposal. She got a small grant, about six hundred dollars, as I recall. She needed much more than this but we followed a policy of not giving large grants. I think that the largest grant we ever gave was three thousand dollars. Mostly the grants were between five hundred and a thousand dollars.

Morris: How many of the proposals were worthy projects even though you did not end up funding them? Glock ; Well, I think an asf#Iil lot of them were worthy in the sense of helping people, I don't -think they were all worthy in being model projects.

But there were interresting things. Y. still remember a grant for gypsies.

X was surp~isedtolearn there was a gypsy community in the East Bay. Is this the same group that Rosenberg has funded in the last few years?

Glo ck : Yes. We gave the first grant to that group, I believe.

Morris : How did you come in contact with the gypsies and how did they come in contact with you?

Glo ck : Well, it wasn't gypsies who applied for the grant. It was a couple of young people in Richmond who were concerned and wanted to do something. They heard about FACE, came to a meeting, presented their case, and asked for a grant. They wanted much more money than we could give them. We didn't narrowly give in Berkeley, but tended to be a little more reluctant in giving to projects outside of Berkeley. I don't remember how much we gave, about five hundred dollars, which we urged them to use for seedmoney. So they did and they actually got considerably more subsequently. I remember Ruth Chance calling me up about them and Rosenberg then came through with a grant.

Morris : Because they said they had gotten some money from you?

Glock : Well, I don't know why Ruth found their proposal persuasive, but she did ask ,me why we did, and I told her that we were --

Morris : Why did you?

Glock : Well, I don't remember the details, now, but we were impressed with the people who came in to speak for it, with the nature of the problem, (you know, people coming in to a new place and suddenly having no help) and with the strong sense of community among gypsies. We were persuaded that it made some sense that some agency should enable these people to maintain their sense of community, which was one of the purposes of the grant. 4.. CONTINUING CONTACTS WITH RUTH CHANCE

Morris : You said Ruth asked you your thoughts on the project for the gypsies because you'd fund it. Other times when she called looking for information, was it for things like that which FACE had already funded or was it for your judgment : as a sociologist?

Glock: I think there must have been a few other things. Once, I remember, she called about some project FACE had financed. She said that under new govermental regulations, FACE could be liable, if the recipient of our grant uses the -money and gets into trouble.

Morris : This was the 1969 Tax Reform Act?

Glock: So I brought it up at the next board meeting and said: "You know we're liable if so-and-so does that ;" and everybody said; ' Oh. '' But we never did much about it, We did have a lawyer and he felt that we were just too small, or something; that probably wouldn't be called into question.

Buth would also on occasion tell me about somebody who was coming to Berkeley and asked me to see them.

Morris : People from the national foundations?

Glock: Or somebody who wanted to see somebody at Berkeley, make the connection. It wasn't very frequent, Ruth and I chatted probably twice a year. And saw each other once every two years.

I never really pushed her hard for support. Except for the young adult project, the Center, while I was director, mostly was doing things outside of Rosenberg's range of interests. Also, raising money was never a serious problem when I was director.

Morris: You were getting your money from government agencies?

Glock: Some. In addition we had the halmllion dollars from the Anti-Defa- mation League. We had some Rockefeller and Ford money. We had sort of a mixed bag. 6, NATIONAL TOWATIONS AND THE FEDERAL GWRNMENT

morris: Would you say that working up proposals and then dealing with the national foundations and the government is similar to working with the small foundations, the 3ocal ones?

Glock; No. My sense from what I've done with the smaller ones is that they are much more chummy and want you to demonstrate the practical effects of research you plan to undertake. They're more action-oriented.

In fact, I just got a turn-down , not from a local foundation here, but somebody had said that there was a foundation in Milwaukee that might be interested in my work in religion. So, since there were a couple of students working for me that didn't have any money next year, we wrote up a proposal trying to get them some fellowship money to do some research. This foundation was interested in the Lutheran Church, so the proposals included some research in the Lutheran Church. But we got a flat turn-down.

When I talked to the person who had recommended this foundation, he told me that the problem was that there's only one member of the foundation's board who really has any sensitivity to the intellectual, and he happened not to be present the day our proposal was considered.

Morris: Is this true of all small foundations?

Glock: Yes, my sense is yes. I've been over to see John May at the San Francisco Foundation; they're not very research-minded either. Their attitude toward research is: Look, you guys can get research money from the nationals, so go and do it.

Morris: The comment is made about the nationals, too, that it's a matter of who you know and what their board members' preferences are.

Glock: Well, the problem is that the nationals includes the government. The government really is the most oriented to research. The nationals also are slightly anti-research. It's hard to get money from the nationals just for research. Not all of them, but Ford is very hard to get money from just for research. Glock ; Rockefeller, J: don't know; it's changed its administration the last couple of years, so I haven't been in touch with it. Their general attitude in the past has been that they're trying to promote human welfere, so unless the research is very clearly oriented to some applied outcome, you tend not to get money. Ford, you know, had started a behavioral science program back in the fifties, and then after a couple of years abandoned it because it boomeranged as a result of their support of the now-infamous jury project, you may recall.

The grant we have now on religious consciousness comes from Ford, but that was peculiar because we got it indirectly. And apparently they were sensitive to the idea that there are changes going on in religious consciousness that might have broader implications. I am going to try to see Ford at the end of the month about financing some research on prejudice. 1'11 let you know how I make out, but I've already been told, well, they'd be glad to see me but they didn't want to encourage me (this sort of attitude) on the phone.

Morris: It sounds as if the preliminary discussions that go on face-to-face make fairly major impact on the nature of the proposal that's actually written and on its chances for approval.

Glock: Yes. Although some ofthe foundations don't want to see youwithouP; a document in hand, Not the big ones, though. In some sense the big ones like to have a face-to-face because it helps them screen things more cheaply. It's easier to spend an hour talking to somebody than to sit there and get a proposal in and then have to spend a lot of time working it over.

[~a~ereel runs out; Professor Gkock has a class. End of ~nterview]

Interviewer-Editor: Gabrielle Morris Transcriber: Sarah Salvante Final Typist : Michekke Guikbeault The Bancroft Library University of California/Berkeley Regional Oral History Office

Bay Area Foundation History Series Volume IV

Jean Gerlinger Kuhn

BALANCE AND ORDER INA COMMUNITY TRUST

An Interview Conducted by Gabrielle Morris

@ 1976byTheRegentsoftheUniversityof California TABU OF CONTENTS -- Jean Gerlinger Kuhn

INTERVIEW HISTORY 115a

1. PERSONAL BACKGROUND 116 Oregon Girl at the University of California 116 San Francisco and Santa Clara County Civic and Political Interests 118 Montalvo Association 118

2. SHARING A DISTINGUISHED GOVERNMENTAL CAREER 122 Sacramento, 1953-1958: Community Leadership and the State Controller's Duties 122 Statewide Travels 125 Robert Kirkwood's Legacy of Public Service 126 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 127 Revising a County Charter 128

3. INTRODUCTION TO PHILANTHROPY 129 Early Awareness of the Rosenberg and San Francisco Foundations 129 Family Bequests 130 The Robert Kirkwood Award 132

4. JOINING THE SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: 1969 Appointee of the League of Women Voters New Member Orient ation Representation on the Distribution Committee Working with John May

5. ENCOURAGING THE OREGON COMWNITY TRUST 140

6. DISTRIBUTION COMMITTEE: RESPONSIBILITIES AND CONCERNS Internal Affairs Areas of Interest Interim Funding Leadership Support in Innovative Programs Evaluation of Results

7. SOME FOUNDATION ISSUES AND OBSERVATIONS 150 Innovation and Social Change 150 Board and Staff Debate the Docket of Applications 151 Investment Questions : Two Aspects 152 Community Participation in a Grant Decision: Dependent Children 154 Organizational and Program Cycles 155 Impact of Grants 157 8. 1974: INDICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE Choosing a New Executive Director Initiating Grants Grants to the Arts Women's Issues and Volunteerism

9. CONCLUDING NOTE ON FOUNDATION PEOPLE AND POLICY

INDEX INTERVIEW HISTORY

Jean Gerlinger Kuhn was interviewed in order to record her observations of philanthropy in the Bay Area as a board member of the region's largest community foundation.

In a pleasant, diffident manner, she describes her long involvement in community activities, various personal philanthropies, and observations of state and local government in Santa Clara County, Sacramento, and San Francisco. She was appointed to the Distribution Committee of the San Francisco Foundation in 1969 by the League of Women Voters, in which she had long been active. With calm objectivity, she cornents on the Distribution Cornittee's responsibilities for orderly business management, their concerns for innovation in and evaluation of Foundation grant-making to community organizations, and an awareness of the cyclic and changing nature of nonprofit organizations and social issues.

She also refers frequently to her reliance on and the competence of the Foundation's staff, noting that for m w years executive director "~ohnMay and the San Francisco Foundation were really synonymous in most people's minds." In addition to her tasks as a Distribution Committee member, she has found time to encourage expansion or establishment of community foundations in other areas.

The interview was recorded in two sessions on November 12, 1974, in .a comfortable anteroom of the Town and Country Club in downtown San Francisco, with a break for lunch together. Mrs. Kuhn reviewed the rough-edited transcript, adding several passages to bring the discussion up to date. These comments are indicated in the text.

Intervi ewer-Editor 27 April 1976 Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California/Berkeley 115b RANCHO YERBA BUENA ROUTE 3, Box 41s SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 1Lh>t&&?Ah 7,JC?74 / if ,,, .- - ! q3-27 ,&~dLLen3"' cd&.ur

6' 6' .. <" (153 ,y.;a .;,@ L ~ L ~LZ~ --[ ~ESLLP-. ~F~~..~ivjl~..tac &em- . .Ki, : .&f@,a~~~~z&&!is k.bx~5~, .-- C . fi~c.~/?'~,3.,k,r~cs ~&~~LO~C~~LC!L%U.

iu~c~l&.R,@L M1 ~~LLC. ~r&~.e~[~~.~-.8c,, la ~cre.~$., @efac

hcazta LQYLpat L -> . &LC a h-1' ~~.~~~-c-;L.,-a &,lLx c;oi (bellCcc- -Q ÿÿ ate of Interview2 November 12 1974*]

1. PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Oregon Girl at the University of Calf forriia

Morris: Thank you for getting your vita together for us so quicldy.

Kuhn: I do apologize for not being a ty-pist; it would take me about seventeen hours to ty-pe three sheets of paper.

Morris: Another of our memoirists says one of the secrets of her success is that she never learned how to ty-pe; therefore, somebody else always had to do the correspondence. [~aughter1

Kuhn : Think of the time it saved her.

Morris: Yes, it did.

I think it's interesting that you felt that your experience as a legislator's wife did give you experience that was relevant to your community involvement as a foundation board member.

Kuhn: That was when we lived in Saratoga. When you talk about background and community involvement , of course this began a long, long time ago.

Morris : Back when you were a student?

Kuhn: When I was a student, I was an extremely happy coed at Berkeley. I wasn't thinking a thing about getting involved, but I became very much interested in the University YWCA and worked there as a volunteer, all four years.

* Mks. Kuhn added a few current details in November, 1975¶ when she reviewed the transcript . Ed. Morris: What kinds of volunteer programs were they running then?

Kuhn : There were some on-campus projects, meetings of students and discussion groups. Lily Margaret Sheman was the woman who ran the Universdty "Y" for many years .-- she was a very strong, interesting personality. What- ever I did there was very interesting and it gave an added Xmension to nv college years that I really enjoyed.

Part of the time I remember going down to a day care center --

Morris : The Berkeley Day Nursery which is now part of the Public School early childhood program?

Kuhn: It might have been. It was way down on Sixth Street. That was good for me at that age, to learn something about these families who were in ter- rible straits. I must have started that in 1929, 1930; those were rough years.

Morris: When the Depression was bearing down, yes.

Kuhn: It was the beginning of the Depression, really. I went to Berkeley in the fall of 1928, so it really didn't begin to hit people very hard I guess till 1930 and then on. But that was an exposure that probably was good for me. I remember going to the blind school and the deaf school and having a certain number of experiences that were valuable to me.

Morris : Different from the life you were familiar with?

Kuhn : That 's right, and different from the kind of student life that I was enjoying on campus. I didn't do anything very outstanding on the campus except to enjoy a normal course. I was a member of Torch and Shield, and I was on some class committees, but that didn't amount to much.

I came from Portland, Oregon. Being an out-of-state student I think gave me quite a different slant, because a good many of the girls in the sorority house where I lived were five-day-a-week residents, and a great many of them would just disappear on Friday afternoon; you wouldn't see them again till Sunday night or Monday morning.

Morris: That was a pattern in the thirties, too?

Kuhn : And to me, it was really great fun to be on the campus and to enjoy it all week long. I noticed the-girls who dropped out or didn't continue were the ones who didn't have the seven-day-a-week campus life that I was enjoying, really because I came from too far away to run home all the time. [~au~hter]But that was just a comment about the fact that I got a lot out of being on the campus during that time. San Fraricisco andsanta Clara Comty 'Civic 'and Political Interests

Kuhn: This is really going back a bit. You talk about background of involvement (the experience in Sacramento came later, of course): when Bob and I were married, we lived in San Francisco for about six years before we xoved to Saratoga. During that time, most of the volunteer work I did was through the ~unidrLeague. Their excellent training program probably had quite an effect on me, as it does on many people.

Morris: The' State Assembly handbook for 1947 lists Mr. Kirkwood as a farmer.

Kuhn: He was; that's right. That's why we moved down to Saratoga. He was farming all through the time we lived there, and then during the time he was in the Assembly, of course, he went back and forth -- returned home on Fridays and went back to Sacramento again early Monday morning.

Morris: Fruit ranch?

Kuhn : Yes. He had a couple of small ranches of his own, and then he used to take care of some of the farms the bank had taken back because of the owner defaulting on mortgage payments. Anyway, it was one of the problems that many people had in that period of not being able to operate their ranches profitably. Bob took care of a good many of them on a percentage basis -- operated them and shared the profits, if any.

During that time, of course, we were both very active in the community. We had two children when we moved down there and we had two more later on. The activities in a small town of that kind, of course, are enormous if you once get involved in them -- everything from the volunteer fire department on up through the Federated Church and the Youth Center and the American Red Cross, of course, during the war'period.

Montalvo 'Association

Kuhn: TheMontalvoAssociationalsowasaverytime-consumingandveryinterest- ing, challenging project for both of us.

Morris: How were you and Mr. Kirkwood involved in that?

Kuhn: In many wws! The San Francisco Art Institute had been left the property as a public trust, being required to manage and operate Montalvo property as a center for the fine arts. The gardens were to be opened as a public park. They tried in the beginning to-do it according to Senator Phelan's wishes, but it became a very involved, difficult thing for them to do at such a long distance. Then they were persuaded that they really couldn't do a good job, and the Phelan heirs were very much interested in breaking the trust. Judge Molkenbuhr (a very wise man) decided against the Phelan heirs in June 1951. He then appointed the new trustees.

Morris: Was part of the reason the' common problem of artists wishing to create, and administering an organization getting in the way of creativity? Kuhn: I think it was very much a matter of finances. Senator Phelan left a quarter of a million dollars endowment, which at that time seemed very handsome, I 'm sure, but in the 1940's -- when all this came up -- the endowment didn't seem quite so handsome. You probably don 't want to get too deeply into the Montalvo business not, but it was a very-interesting exercise in defending a valuable asset to Smta Clara County, and also in trying to carry out the wishes of Senator Phelan, who was a very important figure in that area, as well as in San Francisco.

There was one woman who was really the spearhead of the whole defense of the Montalvo trust, and that was Mrs. Percy Hincks -- Hazel Pierce Hincks . She was a very strong-minded , s trong-willed , intelligent woman who devoted herself practically full time to seeing to it that the trust was not broken, and that new trustees were appointed by the court and that they carried on.

Then Bob Kirkwood was the first president and was president of the board for a long time, I think even through the time when he was State Controller. Fred Oehler, who was a Saratoga man from the Wells Fargo Bank -- then American Trust Company -- did most of the work, but he really didn't want the title, so Bob was really president for a good many years.

He gave a lot of time and attention to it. Of course, when he was in Sacramento, obviously he wasn't paying Ml time attention to the board. Anyway, it's turned out to be a great success story. But that's a whole story in itself.

Morris: It certainly is. Did that exposure and experience in cornunity organization -- is that what got him interested in going into politics?

Kuhn : No, I don't think so. I think his interest in politics came when, first of all, he was on the school board in Saratoga and he was also on the county Planning Commission. Later there was a "~ittleHoover Commission" in the county.

Morris: At 'the county level?

Kuhn: I think there were a good many of those at lower levels of government, trying to avoid overlapping services and overlapping taxes -- what everyone 's struggling with still. But it was a very excellent idea, a good concept, and it was something that a good many people devoted themselves to. J'd say those three things were basically what started him.

Then, someone dropped. out -- a man who'd been in the Assembly for a long time. suddenly dropped out, and Elystus Hayes, the publisher of the San Jose newspapers and Will,Weston,. who was a member of the Plan- ning Connnission, suggested that they'd get behind Bob and help if he wanted to run. Morris: Did you campaign?

Kuhn: Oh, heavens yes -- vigorously. [laughter]

Morris: Was it a usual thing for legislative wives to observe and keep track of what was going on in the legislature?

Kuhn : I think it vas usual. I perhaps did it to a greater degree than some wives because I had a serious interest in it. And also, we were very compatible, and I very often shared in the things that Bob did. So it was extremely interesting to me; I wouldn't have been left out for the world.

Morris: I can well imagine. Had you studied political science?

Kuhn : I took a few courses at. Berkeley -- one from Professor Barrows, of course. It wasn't really a student of political science. It was sort of on-the- job learning.

Going back into my background, my mother had been extremely active in Republican politics in Oregon for years." She became national committeewoman from Oregon, which was then and perhaps still is an elective post. There are only, I think, two or three states where it was an elective post,but in Oregon the committeeman and the committeewoman were elected. It wasn't a hotly-fought contest, but it was interesting. So, this was part of my exposure to politics in my youth. I 've always had a great deal of interest in government.

We sometimes think that young people nowadays are very active and interested in government and politics, but I think that most of my friends and I were pretty much aware of political problems in the days of the Hoover administration and during the period of great changes that came about under Roosevelt -- you could hardly read the papers and listen to anybody without being somewhat aware of the changing economic and political times.

Morris: With a Republican family background, how -did you view Roosevelt's first hundred days?

Kuhn: I think that was the year I graduated from the University. I'm sure I thought i-t was absolutely horrible. Of course, it turned out to be what saved us, I'm sure. [laughter] I was probably in a very strict Republi- can atmosphere. I can remember mother giving speeches saying, of

* Mrs. Kuhn 's mother was Irene Hazard Gerlinger, U.C. Berkeley '04. Ed. Kuhn : course, we believed devoutly in the two-party system, but she would say -- almost parenthetically, of course -- only one party really amounts to anything. Ilaughter]

But I don't think. that 's really affected her three daughters' thinking too much;we allbecame somewhat broader in our political thinking.

Morris: Then you would have been observing and voting in California in 1938 when that other Democratic governor was elected -- Culbert Olson. Kuhn: Yes, that 's right. The' Olson years -- that's another fascinating story, isn It it? You've had that book about the Olson era, haven't you?

Morris: Burke's Olsori's New Deal 'for 'California? Yes.

Kuhn: Quite an interesting book. Anyww, to get back to the project at hand, we've pretty well covered the Saratoga period except for anything you might think of from that sheet that I sent to you. And then, during the time that Bob was in the legislature (as I said, he was a weekly commuter), it never occurred to any of us to move his residence, because after all he was representing that half of the county, and obviously that was home, and our children were established in school and so on; we had dozens of projects going on. 2, SHARING A DISTINGUISHED GOVERNMENTAL CAREER

Sacramento, lg~3-l958~C6mm.f'y 'Lea;depship .&id .thestate . . . . Cdritroller'S Duties

Kuhn: However, of course, in January of '53, we did move to Sacramento. There again, politics certainly had a big influence on our lives and took a great deal of our attention and time.

Morris: Yes. As the wife of the State Controller, were you involved in many cere- moni al things ?

Kuhn: Not as many as one would think. Actually, I wouldnlt say there was a very active social life connected with being a constitutional officer; I think we may have stirred up some of it ourselves because we liked a good many of the people that we were associated with. But there were very few real events .

There used to be a governor's ball years before that, and they gave that up as being kind of a silly thing. The Depression must have killed that off. I think we were fortunate in having some local Sacramento friends whom we 'd known before -- some that. Bob had known at Stanford or I'd known at Berkeley -- because Sacxamento people are very apt to ignore the transient legislative element.

Morris: Really?

Kuhn : Pretty much. Except for a few eager people, like the League of Women Voters, or people who are coming to the legislature asking for something -- they pay attention briefly. But on the whole, the residents of Sacramento I thought were quite indifferent about what was going on. They used to think it odd that I'd go down and spend hours listening to hearings -- comnittee-hearings -- and discussions on the Assembly floor and the Senate floor.

Morris: You said that you were quite interested in some of the governors' conferences.

Kuhn : I think I said I attended two or three of them. You asked which ones Kuhn: they were. The one on Youth I attended, and the one Aging -- both ex- tremes. I didn't take an active part, and I don 't think that I thought it was was very important, except that it was a good exercise in bringing people together, giving them a chance to air their views.

You know how some people have just a bottomless appetite for conferences and meetings; they'd fill the entire Civic Auaitorium in Sacra- mento with people from dl over the state who loved co@ng and loved the chance to express their opinions and views and, of course, something good always comes out of these things. But I didn't have an active part in it at all; I looked at it more as an interesting experience and a kind of exercise in democracy that I thought was well worth the gover- nor's doing.

Morris: As a way of stimulating citizen involvement and thinking?

Kuhn : Yes. Recently Assemblyman Vasconcellos has suggested creating a more hospitable arrangement in Sacramento so that any citizen could come to Sacramento and feel welcome, in his state capitol.

This was perhaps an attempt of that kind, to make people come to Sacramento with a feeling that they would learn something and that they also had something to give; it's vexy important that people feel they give something. I have to admit that I didn't give anything; I just enjoyed seeing the way that it operated.

Morris : That 's a vexy valuable experience too. Where did you become involved in the League of Women Voters?

Kuhn: That came earlier during the six years Bob and I lived in San Francisco. I think I must have joined the League practically immediately as a bride coming to San Francisco. Perhaps due to Mrs. Alfred McLaughlinls influence (she was one of qy mother's close friends). I'm sure I was persuaded this was really -the stimulating, interesting group to belong to. And it certainly was.

Morris : You found time to do the kinds of things that the League of Women Voters involves you in, and also the kinds of things that the Junior League involves you in?

Kuhn: I was a rather passive member for a long time. But during that period, I was much more active in the Junior League. I used to go to the Well Baby Clinic, which was a project of the AAW, and I had various other interests. But the League of Women Voters wasn't, I would say, an important activity of mine at that time at all; whenever I used to go to meetings, I found it very intiresting, and it taught me a lot about the community, but I didn't -do much about it. During the' time I was living in Saratoga, I did less than nothing Kuhn : about it. There vas a San Jose chapter but Saratoga was Just a little bit too isolated and too busy at that time for me.

Morris: It sounds like it. It had an active community life of its own.

Kuhn: Sometimes the smaller the town, the greater the activities, or the more the burden falls on a few people, I guess , in a small area. During the time I was in Sacramento, I knew some of the League members there and was quite familiar with their programs, but the activities that I became involved in in Sacramento were terribly time-consuming, and that plus the political life was a full-time job, plus the fact that I had four children.

Morris: They went to Sacramento with you, too?

Kuhn: Yes. We bought a house and established ourselves right there. During that time I was on the board of the Legal Aid Society and of the Family Service Association, also the Sacramento Children's Home, and was very active in the United Fund (which I think must have been called United Community Fund ; sometimes they change names ) .

Morris: Were your interests in these organizations primarily at the policy and organizational Level?

Kuhn: Yes, the board memberships were. Of course there were many activities, too, that related to our children's activities -- PTA jobs or being in charge of the Girl Scout cookie sale one year -- doing things of that kind that relate to children's activities.

I suppose the most time-consming job of all.was the two years I was chairman of the Neighborhood Division of United Fund, which was an enormous job, and which I enjoyed doing very much. I think I was probably foolish, looking back on it, to get into. so many activities that kept me like a whiyling dervish; I seemed to be in constant motion.

Morris: Yes, I should say so. Four children are enough for most people to cope with.

Kuhn: It was a lot to cope with, but I guess I felt just lucky to be able to do the things I could do, and I enjoyed it so much; I had a hard time saying "no" to something I found interesting.

Morris: Did you find that these activities gave you some ideas or insights that you wanted to share with your husband in terms of what he was doing?

Kuhn: I think it was a complementary thing. He enjoyed a glimpse of some of these things that he got through my eyes, and of course I gained tremendous interests in what he was doing . Kuhn: During that time as Controller, it meant traveling a good deal. Of course, I didn't always go with him, but we did have reasons to go all over the state; I thought that was fascinating. It 's a wonderful opportunity to have to go to the far corners of the state on business.

Morris : Yes. Most people have a much smaller area of interest and geographical exposure.

Kuhn: It was a very rich experience. This is such a huge state, and there is great variation in( different parts of the state -- different attitudes, different ways of thinking, different political thought and so on. brris: Do you recall developing any ideas about what common trends there might be, or any major differences, for example, between the northern counties and the more metropolitan Bay Area?

Kuhn: I really haven 't thought about it in those terms for a long time. I suppose you'd say that there's a very different attitude in urban areas because the problems are so much more acute and so different. Farmers have a totally different set of problems from bankers. All the obvious differences are there.

And there's a difference in sophistication or in the. degree to which people want to give. their time or take a real interest in their own citizenship -- a tremendous difference. brris: You were. saying that -Saratoga had a lively community life, and it sounds as if there a fair number of people willing. and active in the community responsibilities. Did you find that in other communities?

Kuhn: It's the only small comity I've lived in. Of course, when we'd go to someplace, like Redding, we were apt to see people who were very active in the community. We weren't going to a well baby clinic or to a Red Cross distribution center; we were going on a political errand and on state business, so of course the people we saw were probably the civil servants -- the people who had some connection with the state.

Although I got many impressions from the people we talked to, and the people we had dinner with or rLsited with -- I wouldn't say that I could make any definitive statements about the difference. People we saw were probably the better educated, the more involved local citizens, naturally, because they're the ones who were apt to talk with a state official. Robert Kirkwood s Legacy of Public Service

Morris : It 's unfortunate that Mr. Kirkwood's pditical career and other community activities came to an untimely end; he died much too young.

Kuhn: It seemed very unfortunate because he was an excellent public servant. He was perhaps not destined to be a great politician or a demagogue, but in a quiet way he was remarkably effective. He would never say one thing and mean something else. And in an argument, he would understand the other person's point of view, so that he would never take anything personally; he had a nice detachment about even a very heated argument.

This was a curious quality because it gave him a kind of serenity within himself; he would have a very strong point of view, but he could understand thoroughly why somebody else had a different view. This was a very interesting characteristic.

Morris : Those qualities sound like the ones that appealed to Governor Warren and led him to appoint Mr. Kirkwood to the Controller vacancy.

Kuhn: Possibly so. They became very good friends. There was a group of five or six legislators who were called the Young Turks, informally, by the newspapermen in Sacramento. They were very much interested in carrying out some of Governor Warren's programs, and used to meet frequently to discuss ways and means of being effective. They were very effective, as it turned out.

Morris : Who was in this group besides Mr. Kirkwood?

~~h~: There was a man named Stewart Hinckley who came grom San Bernardino; and Thomas Caldecott, who is now a Federal Judge, from the East Bay. Some- times Marvin Sherwin from Oakland was in the group. Laughlin Waters from Los Angeles, who later became U.S. attorney there. There were others in the group from time to time. Of course, all this was going on while Bob was in the Assembly, and a good many of the same people were still in the Assembly during the time that he had the Controller's job.

We were digressing a bit, talking about some of Bob 's characteristics. He wasn't a particularly good public speaker. He was thorough and brilliant and had a tremendous amount to say, but did it in rather a flat voice that didn't really excite people very much. Warren, for example, wasn't a very good speaker. I remember spending hours and hours listen- to Warren's speeches; they couldn't halie been more deadly. What he said often was excellent, but it was tedious for the audience.

Morris Yes. I've heard some of his staff people bemoan their efforts in terms of his radio speeches. Kuhn: It's a quality of the voice perhaps. Unfortunate. You could succeed fairly well in the old days, but now, with all the media exposure, you almost have to be talented in front of the camera in order to go across.

Morris: Did that became a factor when Mr. Kirhood ran for a second full term as controller?

Kuhn: It became something of a factor in Bob's case. Of course, I think the reason that Alan Cranston was able to defeat Bob was quite simple. It was time for a change. The Republicans had been In the constitutional offices for so many years ; why should it always be in the hands of the Republicans? They had certain differences -- ideolqgically and other ways, although there isn't much place for partisanship in the operation of the State Controller's office. For a constitutional office, and an extremely important one, it is quite inconspicious and' its functions don't attract much attention.

Morris: That was about the point that the California Democratic Council was pretty well organized.

Kuhn : Yes. That was very much an organized, functioning group.

Morris : And the California Republican Assembly had become less so.

Kuhn: They'd fallen pretty much in the hands of the old-timers who were doing the same old thing year after year; it wasn't as dynamic a group as the young Democrats who were coming along. For whatever reason, I think that one party shouldn't stay in control too long; it's healthy to have changes.

Kuhn: Early in 1959 we lef't Sacramento and came to San Francisco. Bob became manager of utilities for the City of San Francisco. The Public Utilities Commission appointed him and it was, of course, a very interesting job. carrying a huge responsibility. At that time, it comprised the airport and the municipal railway and the Hetch Hetchy project, the water system -- all those. The airport now has been detached and operates separately.

There again, it meant a different kind of exposure but an extremely interesting one. It was a job that wasn't political and it made no demands on the family of that public official.

Morris: But again, they all draw on almost a regional group of people that have to be involved in getting things done.

Kuhn : Oh,yes. It's a great organization. Here again, as I discovered in Kuhn: Sacramento, the body of civil servants in the state and also in the City of San Francisco -- the two areas where I've become familiar with them -- they're very impressive, We're so fortunate to have such scores of excellent public servants. If you didn't have them, you'd be in aterrible state.

.Ch. ' ' Revisili . .A .C arter

Kuhn: While we are talking about exercises in government, I should mention the other thing that was extremely interesting. During the time Bob was in the Assembly, Santa Clara County seemed to be h a great need of a county charter; it was not a chartered county. This came about largely because of the efforts of the "Little Hoover omm mission", which made an intensive study of "what's wrong with county government ." It was operating at the will of the state, as non-chartered governments do -- there were many reasons that inspired the leaders in Santa Clara County to work hard to adopt a charter.

Morris: I would think so. That's a fairly major change to bring about.

Kuhn: Charters, luckily, are subject to amendment and change -- probably no charter is perfect the way it 's written. The one in Santa Clara County has been amended, changed and improved. But the basic problem of adopting one -- going through all the machinery of getting it accomplished -- was another fascinating experience. That took a great deal of our attention and time.

Morris: Mr. Kirkwood was working on this county charter while he was in the Assembly?

Kuhn: Yes. He was chairman of the County Charter Committee. So this was one of his major projects.

During that time, the legislature didn't meet so many months at a time. It was part-time and paid accordingly. When he was first elected, I think the salary was a hundred dollars a month, plus an issue of postage stamps , plus one round trip to Sacramento per session, plus some help from the secretarial pool; this was for the first two years. Then in 1949 the salary moved up to three hundred dollars a month, which seemed actually grand, and with one half-time secretary. I don't think there was much change in the per diem allowance, which was very modest -- about ten dollars per day! It was a labor of love, but it also didn't take people away from home for so many months. The sessions ran only from January to the first of July. 3. INTRODUCTION TO PHILANTHROPY

Early A-areriess of the 'Roseriberg arid 'Sari F rancisco' ' . ' .FoWdations

Morris: During all these community and government activities, were you aware of the San Francisco Foundation or the Rosenberg Foundation?

Kuhn: Wewere veryawareoftheRosenbergF~undationbecauseMrs.Abraham Rosenberg became a good friend of ours.

Morris : That would have been a sister-in-law of the man who set up the foundation?

Kuhn: Max Rosenberg and Abraham Rosenberg were the two brothers. Max Rosenberg was not married. Mrs. Abraham Rosenberg, who was a widow when we knew her, used to come to stay with us quite often. We lived in a huge house in Saratoga -- the family white elephant -- and in order to pay the taxes and keep it going during those lean years, we opened it as a guest house. That was my little business, to try to carry the place. It worked quite well; we were able to pay the taxes and upkeep, and employ a gardener and a cook. We had some rather interesting visitors. Mrs. Rosenberg was one of our regular guests, and she was a very spicy, knowledgeable woman. I used to hear a great deal about the Rosenberg Foundation from her.

The San Francisco Foundation. It 's hard to say when we were aware of it. We 'd known John May for a long time, and I suppose that soon after it was organized and formed, we became very much aware of it.

Morris: You'd known John May before he --'.?

Kuhn : Bob had known him at Stanford -- although not well. And there was a certain amount of publicity attached, of course, to the new organization.

Morris: I?o you recall what Mrs. Rosenberg's coments were about the' Rosenberg Foundation? This wouldbe in its earlyyeai-s, too. . . Kuhn : No. I really don't remember' any specific comments; I remember talking chiefly about the' attitude of Max Rosenberg and his great generosity; : his, great impulse to share and to take care of children, particularly, Kuhn: and the needy. I was certainly aware that there was such a thing as the Rosenberg Foundation!

Going back to the San Francisco Foundation, another reason we were very much aware of it was perhaps because of Mrs. Alfred McLaughlin, who was such a great friend.

Morris: So that you were awwe sf the growth and the presence of the foundation through her?

Kuhn : Partly through her.

Family Bequests

Kuhn : Another reason we were interested was that when Bob Kirkwood was practicing law in San Francisco for a period of six yews when we were first married, his work was entirely in the probate department of a big law office. This involved estate planning, charitable trusts, family trusts, family agreements and disagreements, et cetera.

Morris : That's a great American tradition, too.

Kuhn: Right. Often estates are not well planned and good intentions go awry.

Morris : It 's curious that lawyers apparently find it easier to work with a client writing a will, if there is something like the San Francisco Foundation to which to give your hopes for the future and the community.

Kuhn : I'm sure he ran across a certain number of family funds or private foundations that were established a long time ago, where a client had some problem to do with a family trust or a family foundation. This was a very good reason why he was more aware of the possibilities of doing something more sensible with private funds.

Morris : Was he still on the Montalvo board of trustees when that situation needed some resolution?

Kuhn : Oh, yes, very actively.

Morris: Then, in 1971, the trustees transferred the assets under their control to the San Francisco Foundation. This is the nursing service's portion.

Kuhn : Oh -- you're talking about the Phelan Trust. That's different. The Phelan Trust was a separate trust set up by Senator Phelan. Morris : Separate from the whole Montdvo --

Kuhn : Yes. Then, there's another trust, to do with the poetry awards and the awards to artists, the competition.

Of course, this is now handled by the San Francisco Foundation. Mrs. Cummings, who was with the Phelan Trust for years in the Awards office, now has her office in the San Francisco Foundation offices; it's a part of the foundation but separately administered. It's a good demonstration of the foundation's flexibility. Of course, the Phelan money is spent according to the trust instrument.

The Distribution Committee, for example, has nothing at all to do with the way those funds are distributed, although we do have the responsibility of seeing to it that the awards are handled in the proper manner and that the fiscal accounting is taken care of and so forth. It is a fine way of leaving money in perpetuity, a reason that Senator Phelan felt was very important.

Morris: So that when the time came that you wanted to establish something in memory of Mr. Kirkwood, you already had experience with this approach?

Kuhn: Well, long before that -- That, of course, came af'ter his death -- before that, we had made some gifts to the San Francisco Foundation.

In fact, the white elephant in Saratoga that I referred to -- we 'd decided that our children would never be rich enough or foolish enough to live in a great place like that, nor could they probably ever afford just the upkeep and maintenance of it. So, Bob and I decided to turn that over to charitable trustees which, of course, removed it from our estates; it was a very sensible plan. We discussed this with our children and about the purpose of doing it. It seems to have worked very well.

This is another way of using a charitable trust to insure that eventually certain monies will go to agencies or institutions that we care about. There are a lot of unknown quantities: what's an old house on five acres in Saratoga worth? It may be worth a lot; it may be worth little.

Morris : Is it grape-growing Land?

Kuhn : It used to be orchard property. Now it's all subdivided, except for the five acres -- and I have a Life interest in it. At any rate, there are interim trustees who have just one job, and that is to turn the place into cash when I give it up or when I die. They have a letter from Bob and me, written before his death, urging the San Francisco Foundation, who will receive the cash, to distribute it according to our wishes. Kuhn: That could be amended by me, or it could be ignored by the Distribution Committee if they chose to do something else with it. As a rule, however, when money is given with a specific request, the Distribution Committee does pay attention to that. If, for example, a man leaves money suggesting that it be given to the arts, we try not to put it into welfare programs.

The Robert Kirkwood Award

Morris: John May said that you had talked to him when the Kirkwood Award was set up, quite some time before you yourself became a member of the Distribution Committee.

Kuhn : Yes. That was four years before. This was not set up by me, however. Two or three other people thought about it and hit on this plan as a continuing and suitable memorial. The plan for the award to be administered by the Foundation worked out nicely. I think they received contributions of about thirty thousand dollas, which was enough to insure making an annual award of a thousand dollars. The award has gone once to a group -- the Coro Foundation; otherwise, to individuals.

But this is something that I keep out of entirely; our children and I have nothing to say about it.

Morris: Did you participate in the decision to have the award given for distinguished service to Northern Californians?

Kuhn : No. I was told about it. I was able to understand immediately that this should not be a family affair and that I would keep out of it.

Morris: It's interesting to sort out how these things have worked.

Kuhn: It was a spontaneous thing that came from other people, and how nice that it was!

Morris : Yes, indeed. 4. JOINING THE SAN FRANCISCO FQUNDATION: 1969

Appointee of 'the Leag% of 'Wonien Voters

Morris: You were appointed to the San Francisco Foundation Distribution Committee by the president of the Lewue of Women Voters. Who was she then, and did she ask you whether or not you wanted to be appointed?

Kuhn: That's an interesting question. It was Diene Bull, and she asked me if I could and would like to fiLL out Mrs. Alfred McLaughlin 's unexpired term. Of course I accepted! She made the appointment then.

When Bob and I.Left Sacramento , and moved back here to San Francisco, I became more -active as a League member. By that, I mean that. I attended many meetings. For -about three years,. our house was one of the neighborhood meeting places. Then I was asked to be on a -committee on boards and commissions.

Morris: Is this the group that sits down and says, "Who would be a Likely person to suggest to the mayor to appoint?"

Kuhn: They go through an awful Lot of information about many people, male and female, trying to make valuable suggestions to the person who has the appointive power -- in most cases the mayor, but then there are many other appointive positions, too.

Taey have also been interested in finding good people to be candidates, say, for the school board or for %he board of supervisors. With- out actively getting into a campaign, they have studied the background of certain people and decided whether or not they would be suited to a certain job.

That was a very interesting experience, too, because it broadened my acquaintance with, and -awareness of many, many people in the community. I enj oyed that thoroughly.

Morris: It would be an exercise in evaluation, too. Does that committee go over the matter of whom the League should appoint to the Distribution Committee of the San Francisco Foundation? Kuhn : I donrt know. I've never known how in the world I was chosen. I've never really asked. Because I was on that committee of the league, of course I knew a good many of the people who were very active in the league at that time, and some of them still are, -- I really don't know where the idea came from. At the time the appointment was made I was no longer sexving on the cosnmittee. I remarried in June of 1968 and, because our principal residence is on a ranch near San Jose, I did drop some San Francisco activities.

Morris : Did you see the Foundation as something that would be fairly time-consuming?

Kuhn : I don't think I thought of it in those terms, and I can't say it is really time-consuming. It requires a lot of serious consideration and evaluation, and I think that all your other experiences and activities in the community are just resouxces that you call on within yourself. Because of certain exposures, you have a bettex fund of information or at least familiarity with many different facets of community life. You have asked what activities I've been involved in in San Francisco that have been particularly Qelpful. First the United Community Fund which became UBAC, in the womenrs division, and then I became active on a special advisory committee there known as the Womenrs Advisory Committee. And I was a member of the board of Edgewood, a home for disturbed children, and of the old May T. Morrison Rehabilitation Centex, which Later became the Jerd Sullivan Center.

Morris: That was the first organization to receive a San Francisco Foundation grant.

Kuhn: Was it really? The May Morrison Center? I'm amazed; I didn't know that.

Morris: It's there in the scrapbooks on those early years, which are very interesting.

Kuhn: They've also given subsequent ones. But that now, of course, is merged with the Garden Hospital, so it's the Garden Hospital-Jerd Sullivan Re- habilitation Center. I'm still on that board; I don't know why; I should really retire. But it's been very interesting; I've enjoyed that enormously.

Then the World Affairs Council. we'd always been active members in that. Bob Kirkwood was on the board. Then after his death, they asked me if I would fill out his unexpired term. So I've been a member ever since. It's rather Like a second home, I feel so familiar with that one. New Member Orient atf on

Morris : Many boards have some kind of orientation for new members. Does the Foundation board?

Kuhn: I suppose yout d call it that; it's pretty informal. I can remember receiving masses of material in the mail and reading through an awful lot of past history and a few of the bi-monthly things [the staff calls this 'the docket '] that come out wTth all the requests for funds -- the applications. It gave me a picture of the way the foundation operates and the way the staff operates."

So I had some familiarity before I went to my first meeting. And then I had known two or three of the members previously, so it wasn't an entirely strange group to me. I did find out at that time that I was the only woman ; and in, fact I was until 1974 when Rhoda Goldman [daughter of Walter ~aas1 was appointed. . . . Morris: Was there ever any discussion of board composition?

Kuhn : There has. been -occasionally. The appointments are made, as you know, by. di fferen+ bodies in Shis area'. There.'ve- been three others that have been filled., haven't there? . Brooks Walker,. Jr . was the first new member after' I came on, the next one was Ira. Hall, next was Rhoda Goldman, then Hamilton Budge, and most recently Robert C . Harris.

I think almost everybody -- everybody on that committee or everybody associated with the Foundation -- might say, "wetrenot, and don't pre- tend to be redly a broad, representative group. "

I don't think there's ever been a feeling that the Distribution Com- mittee should be a representation of a group or faction. This may seem curious (and perhaps the trend will go that way; I don't know), but certainly in the past, and I think at the present time, there is a feeling that it's a highly selective appointment, and should be -- based on what a candidate or a person can bring to the Foundation and not in any way as a representative of a group.

* During the summer of 1975, board and staff held several extended sessions away from the office. These served not only as orientation for the several recent board appointees, but also as a vehicle for thorough discyssion of gresen% and future operations a;nd planning for the group as a whole. -Ed. Morris: So that you never felt that you were particularly a spokesman for the woman 's position?

Kuhn : No. I used to ask the League of Women Voters members if they ever wanted me to report to them or ever come back to them with anything, or to express any of their views to the Foundation. They said, "~eavens, no. Don 't ." l~aughin~]

I don't think this happens in any case. Ira Hall, for example, was appointed by the president of Stanford University, but speaks for himself as an individual. It's never been indicated to any of us that we are representatives of a group or that we are spokesmen for a group.

Morris : I understand that Mr. Hall's appointment represented a decision by the people at Stanford that it was time there was a black man on the board. Had the Distribution. Committee itself talked about whether they would like someone to appoint a minority?

Kuhn: Wehadtalkedaboutit. Ithinkthatmanyof us felt that inorderto have a good balance on. our committee, if there were a good knowledgeable, mature person -- who could exercise good judgment and had a degree of objectivity that would make him a good member of the committee -- it would be very healthy for us and very good to have a man from the black community or a woman fYom the black community. This is true of every ethnic group. Of course, it would be impossible on a committee of seven to have everyone represented, wouldn't it? This is another reason why representation isn't a key to success in the Foundation.

Many people don't understand this, I'm sure. The feeling that every pressure group isn't represented, or every block of citizens is not spoken for, is a little hard for some people to accept; %hey can't see why it works this way. So then, of course, they might use the word "elitist1' and say this is an elite organization. It's true, I suppose, as many leadership groups could be called elite in that they include people who have demonstrated sort of a special talent or special ability or special insights that perhaps set them a little bit apart. But there are certain qualities that make a good member, and it seems to work. I think John May has some ideas about this which you probably have discussed with him.

Morris : We 've touched on it. One of the comments I've heard that was quite interesting is that the appointing authorities in 1948 may have represented a broader spectrum sf the community than those same appointing authorities do twenty-five years later in 1974. Kuhn : May" have produced a broader representation.

Morris: Yes. For instance, in the forties, the League of Women Voters was per- ceived by many to be --

Kuhn': Far out?

Morris : Yes ; politically and socially leftish.

Kuhn : And so who'd they choose? They chose Mrs. McLaughlin, who was anything but far out, but she was certainly far-sighted.

Morris: Yes. When you went on the committee, Mr. Beise was chairman?

Kuhn : Yes, Mr. Beise was the chairman. We usually met in the office of whoever was chairman, untiL the Foundation offices were enlarged to include a board room.

-- . That has been a great success. It's very convenient to have the meetings right there. It also gives the staff more of a sense of -- not participation necessarily, but of seeing the committee in action; they never used to see some of the conanittee members from one year's annual meeting to the next.

You asked about the other members of the committee. There wasn't any particular surprise about any of them. I'd known Dan Koshland forever and was a great admirer of his. I was only reinforced in my great admiration for him. I had not known Mr. Beise or Mr. Solomon very well before, although I had seen both of them in active roles in the formation of the UBAC and the establishment of the Bay Area Social Planning Council as an arm of UBAC . The Solomon Committee Report had a tremendous effect. So I knew both those men in that context before I knew them as fellow committee members.

Bill Hewlett, of course, I had known casually for many years through Stanford friends. On the committee, he was an interesting and vital person -- very enthusiastic, and thoughtful in his comments. As far as Ira Hall is concerned, he is by all odds the youngest member. I don't think he's even reached thirty yet !

Morris : I don't think so. He graduated in 1966 from Stanford.

Kuhn: So he's working his way through the late twenties still. Perhaps the only disadvantage that he had is the fact that he didn 't have a broad acquaintance with San Francisco or with San Francisco agencies and institutions. He 's certainly a studious and very bright man. He gives us another point of view often that has been valuable. We have rather exciting discussions at times , and this of course is valuable, having someone who spurs us a bit to a Livelier debate or a livelier discussion. Morris: It sounds as if he, in spite of his youth, has no shyness about speaking UP . Kuhn : I'd say he is not shy. Nor is BiU Orrick rnow Judge orrick] . I'd say none of us is shy. r~aughter,] Nor Christian de ~ui.@e/,nor any of the more recent members !

'Working 'WL-Lh John May

Kuhn: John May was practically an institution on his own: it was interesting to see him as he appeared as a staff person in charge of this operation. Of course, I Id never known him in that way at all. I was very impressed. He has a remarkable, broad overview of a great many areas of comnity life -- great sensitivity. Of course, he's developed wisdom and a very deep awareness of problems and of possible solutions. He's imaginative and innovative in his thinking, certainly not stuck with any old set of ideas that were good twenty-six years ago when they first began. He's had a very interesting effect on the development of the Foundation. It's been rather fun to see him in this, fromthe inside looking at how it operates. I'd known him chiefly, as I came with application in hand a few times, asking for money for one group or another, and through some correspondence to do with grants.

Morris : When you had come, application in hand?

Kuhn: For Edgewood, for example, I remember going to see him once about whether he thought it would be appropriate or suitable for Edgewood to ask for a grant for a certain project . He was always very cooperative and extremely helpful, and rather remarkable in the way he -- hers generous in the information he's able to give and willing to give. He'll say, his is nothing for us to handle, but there are seventeen other family foundations or private foundations or corporate foundations who might be interested. I'll send you their nws and addresses, and good luck."

This kind of thing is a tremendous help. Anybody can go to the Attorney General's office and get an entire list of thousands and thousands of charitable trusts and charitable foundations, but what a help to have someone who knows them all by heart and knows the appropriate ones.

Morris : And say these are the ones that relate to what you're interested in. Yes, that Is interesting to have both of those views, of John at work and the Foundation at work.

Kuhn : Of course, practically evexy agency or institution or organization in town has come to the Foundation at one time or another asking for something. Morris: I think that's true. This is why I think the San Francisco Foundation and the Rosenberg and a few others -- it looks to me as if you are in a very good position to have an overview of what is going on in the community as a whole, and what various groups are thinking and what kinds of services are being sought.

Kuhn: That's very interesting. Here again, I think because John has been a dominant figure on the fomdation scene, he's done a great deal to bring together other foundations in the area, with a tremendous exchange of ideas, information. This is something which is still going on, happily, and has tremendous vdue. You rather increase the value of one foundation's work by having some input from other foundations.

Morris: Is that what they refer to as the muLtiplier effect?

Kuhn : I think so. [~aughing.I

[Interruption. Lunch. 1 5. ENCOURAGING THE OREGON COMMUNITY TRUST

Kuhn: Something justcrossed~mindwhichrefersbacktoanearlierg~e~tion, and that was about becoming aware of the existence of the San Francisco Foundation and about the way it operates. In the mid-fifties, I had a sister who lived in Portland, Oregon, who was very much interested in doing something in that commuaity, like establishing a community trust. There had not been anything of that kind there. She and I went in to Call on John May one day at the Foundation office. He gave her a wealth of material. Unfortunately, she became ill very shortly after that and nothing much came of her plan.

However, there is a postcript to that. In November, 1973, an Oregon community foundation was founded.

Morris : That's a statewide organization, isn't it?

Kuhn : Portland, of course, is the only major city in Oregon, the only really metropolitan cdty. Because I'd had this idea in the back of ~qyhead for so long, and because Lew White was going to Portland to give an address to the Girl Scouts of the Columbia River Council, it was arranged to have a group meet with him and Listen to what he had to say about the San Francisco Foundation and public foundations in general. There had been several attempts to organize such a thing in Portland, and for one reason or another they had all fallen by the wayside. This time, however, something really did catch fire.

Morris: Good. So that Oregon Foundation really was pollinated.

Kuhn : Soit was! Shortly af'ter that it was organized. [see illustration, next page. ] Now, at the end of two years, their reports show assets of over two million dollars! . Remarkable when you consider that community trusts don 't grow by leaps and bounds; they grow slowly. But I'm extremely gratified that this finally has happened.

Morris: Who were the people that you contacted- up there to put them in touch with Lew?

Kuhn : My brother-in-law -who lives in Portland, William SwLndells , the husband of this late sister, was receptive. He had the time, and has a stake Selections from The Oregon Community Foundation brochure, November, 1973

A Message from the President Directors Represent Varied Interests

The Oregon Community Foundation is a new institution dedicated to meeting charitable needs throughout the state. Community foundations are primarily grant-making charitable organizations. The Directors of The Oregon Community community foundation concept has been Foundation are selected on the basis of their used effectively in many areas of the country personal capabilities and achievements for more than half a century. within their individual areas of community Community foundation distributable funds interests. The current directors were chosen are derived from gifts and bequests of many by representatives of the Bench and Bar donors. Grant programs are designed to Group. On the expiration of the staggered benefit charitable needs in many fields.. terms of initial directors and future directors, Community foundations are becoming nominations to fill the vacancies will be made more significant in the light of recent changes by the following groups on a rotating basis. in federal tax laws which have placed severe Bench and Bar Group impositions on private charitable foundations. Chief Judge, U. S. District Court of Oregon The Oregon Community Foundation has Chief Justice, Oregon Supreme Court been formed to provide a planned program to Chief Judge, Oregon Court of Appeals wisely use income from bequests and endow- President, Oregon state Bar Association ments. Funds will be managed to assure a continuous source of income for philanthropic Education and Culture Group purposes in perpetuity. Chancellor, Board of Higher Education Our officers and directors are required to Chairman, Independent Colleges of represent broad segments of our statewide Oregon Association President, Oregon Museum of Science .I community. Our activities will be reported regularly to the public. & Industry We invite your inquiries and your partici- President, Oregon Historical Society pation in the. Oregon Community Foundation. President, Oregon Symphony Society - President, Portland Art Association 1 Medicine and Research Group Chairman, Medical Research Foundation of Oregon William Swindells, Sr. President, Oregon Graduate Center President November. 1973 President, Oregon Medical Society Dean, University of Oregon Medical School Social and Civic Group President, Tri-County United Good Neighbors President, Portland Chapter of Urban League President, League of Women Voters President, Portland Chamber of Commerce Finance Group Chief executive officers of participating banks Excerpt from Oregon Journal Editorial (Journal editorial continued) published September 22,1973

- The OCF hopes to establish sufficient credibility that donors will be willing to give it some latitude in distributing funds and, even when making specific bequests, allow it to select a beneficiary of like nature if the original intended purpose has evaporated. By building credibility the OCF also hopes "New Channel for Private Giving" to attract gifts for Oregon purposes from "The Oregon Community Foundation large donors in the state who might otherwise (OCF) is not just a new kid on the block trying select a beneficiary in another part of the to muscle in on the charity business. country. And because it will embody the It is a creation of some of the state's best "united way" principle, the OCF will be in a business and legal minds to fill gaps and better position to approach such giant expand the potential of private giving for foundations as Ford and Rockefeller in behalf educational, charitable and civic improve- of Oregon causes than smaller organizations ment purposes. which have to compete with hundreds of It is not a competitor of other foundations others that are "pecking away" at the Eastern- and agencies which solicit and distribute based fund manager. money for a great variety of purposes. In many Community foundations have been estab- respects, it will be their friend and ally, since lished in many other parts of the country. Many it may tap sources for their benefit which of them have grown to substantial size in they cannot reach. It establishes another level relatively short times because they have of "united way" giving. proved themselves to donors who wanted to Under present tax laws, small foundations see their funds wisely used in the public. find that disproportionate shares of their interest. income are eaten up by overhead. This prob- OCF, headed by lumberman William Swin- lem can best be met by a pooling of resources dells Sr., is starting off with a set of officers and a growth in assets substantial enough and directors whose names give it immediate to permit optimum efficiency in management. credibility of the highest order and with pro- The new foundation will be geared to cope visions in its incorporation which guarantee more effectively with the problem of bequests that a broad spectrum of beneficiaries will which are so specific that they cannot be receive consideration. changed even if the cause for which the funds Despite attacks from some quarters in originally were given no longer exists. An ex- recent years, private giving in America is an treme example cited by a spokesman for the irreplaceable resource in helping to rneet new group is a still-existent fund in the social needs. OCF has the potential to Middle West for stranded settlers headed becomean impressive example of private West in covered wagons. responsibility in behalf of the public good." (Con:inued on next page) Tax Advantages of Community Foundations vs. Private Trusts

The Oregon Community Foundation believes new legislation which restricts private foundations places great emphasis on the role which a community foundation must play to harness the resources of private philanthropy for public charity. Community foundations must approach this new role -Generally, for income tax purposes, studiously, energetically and responsibly. donors to The Oregon Community Once the full impact of the Tax Reform Act Foundation receive deductions based of 1969 is felt, the rate of growth of community on the full market value of appreciated . foundations will be even greater than in the property, while donors to private founda- past. The Tax Reform Act of 1969 imposes tions lose the deduction for one-half of restrictions on private foundations. Many the appreciation of donated property trustees of such foundations are considering contributed for endowment purposes. terminating private foundation status and -A donor to a community foundation may transferring assets to a public charhy such as deduct contributions up to 50 per cent The Oregon Community Foundation. The ad- of his adjusted gross income and is vantages of such transfers are substantial entitled to a five-year carry-over for con- and the distinctive identity and purpose of tributions in excess of 50 per cent of each transferred fund can be maintained. adjusted gross income. Donors to private A few comparative benefits of public foundations are limited to a deduction charities are: of 20 per cent of adjusted gross income -All income to The Oregon Community with no carry forward. Foundation is tax-exempt; the net invest- These statements are intended only as ment income of private foundations is broad generalizations and do not constitute taxed at four per cent. legal advice. Donors are encouraged to seek -Community foundations file one tax form, professional advice in determining the tax reducing expensive accounting effects of any proposed charitable giving overhead. program. Kuhn: in the business community and has a broad acquaintance. So I felt he could be an effective person in getting something going. As it turned out, I think this was a lucky choice. I could just call and say: Look, why don't you get a group together and give them a good lunch and listen to a man from the San Francisco Foundation.

Apparently the time was right and people were much interested in what Lew White had to say about how a community foundation functions. In that way, I feel the San Francisco Foundation really helped the Oregon Foundation get started. That was another reason that I was aware of the way that the San Francisco Foundation operates and succeeds, because I did have that one period when I was given lots of material about it and when I looked into it pretty thoroughly. 6. DISTRIBUTION COMMITIIIEE : ETESPONSIBILSTIES AND CONCERNS

Internal Affairs

Morris : When you came on the Distribution Committee in 1969, what struck you most about the kinds of the things that were coming to the board then?

Kuhn : I don't remember myt-g too startling in the first year or so; the meetings were orderly and tidy and I was impressed with the amount of staff work that went into the preparation for our meetings. As you probably know, we have a distribution meeting every other month, and the alternate month is a more or Less policy discussion or attending to other business.. So that means that five times a year, these enormous dockets appear, representing I don't know how many hours of staff time -- a tremendous amount. When I first became a member, I believe that Lew White may have been the only staff member who assisted John. Then, shortly after that, Rudy Glover was employed, and those two, of course, are still there backing up Martin Paley.

There were many internal problems which are not particularly relevant here, but they caused a good deal of time and discussion -- s.uch things as spending hours and hours with the accounting firm, converting to a different way of keeping the books.

Morris: Was this after the Tax Reform Act was passed, requiring additional re.- porting?

Kuhn: That had some bearing on it. The fact was that in order to make our own efforts more understandable to us and everybody else, it seemed important to modernize and redo the whole system.

Morris: Was this a committee that met with the acoountants, or was this the Distribution Committee as a whole?

Kuhn : People from the accounting firm met with us a number of times and explained to us what the new system would mean and what the new machinery and the expenses involved would be. After several false starts with other people, we now have Doris Sams as office manager and she's excellent. Kuhn: There was a lot of time spent, as I recall, on the internal workings - the mechanics and the housekeeping. Extremely important and of great concern, of course to the bank trustees. That took up a good deal of time. However, it was also a good way of getting a better grasp of the business operation, since our meetings often are involved only in the answers to applications.

Areas of Interest

Morris: Those years -- 1969 and 1970 -- seem to have been when there was a surge of applications from the minority community and what's come to be known as the counterculture and alternate services. How did the board go about dealing with these new kinds of applications?

Kuhn: I think that they approved them pretty much as they do all of them. The staff has gone through them and rejected the ones that are not likely to succeed or not really within their area of competence. The staff, of course, has had to wrestle with most of the problem of rejection, of either inadequate applications or inappropriate applications. The ones that have actually come to the committee for discussion have been very interesting. Some of them, I think, we turned down regretfully because perhaps we didn't feel we had enough money or we might have felt we were putting too much emphasis on one or another problem area. You say there was a great surge of applications -- I don't remember that it was such a sudden wave of this kind of thing; it was more gradual than that. There certainly are a number of them, and I assume there always will be.

When they reach the Distribution Committee level, I don't think that they cause any particular kind of attention; I think we treat them all alike. We treat them as applicati'ons, when they have some viable reason to be considered. I don't remember that we've ever felt: This shouldn't have come to us, or This is something we ever show an interest in; because the staff does weed out -- screen out -- so many applications that come. So I really don't think I've been aware of a great surge of applications from pressure groups or third world groups or minority groups.

Morris: Non-traditional kinds of agencies or institutions.

Kuhn : Of course, many minority groups are also becoming traditional. But I think it's been more gradual than that.

Morris: That's a useful observation. What kinds of approaches or kinds of grants did you feel were particularly interesting or successful? Kuhn: I think that sometimes we've done things that were perhaps a little bold, that broke our own rules. Perhaps one of the most interesting ones is the Oakes College grant to the University of California at Santa Cruz, which breaks practically every one of our rules. I don't think I 'm telling stories out of school to say that.

Morris: A lot of that is for physical plant, isn't it?

Kuhn: Bricks and mortar. It's out of our immediate area of interest, and it's an ongoing thing over a period of time, which we ordinarily don't commit ourselves to. So it's a curious thing. It's one of the most interesting because it is off our usual beam.

Morris: Why do you say out of your immediate area of interest?

Kuhn: Usually the grants are. given to applicants who have a program in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Morris: And the Bay Area doesn't reach as far as Santa Cruz?

Kuhn: Not really. At our last meeting, we made a grant to a very interesting project in Santa Clara County, but that 's quite unusual : we almost never approve grants there, with the exception of Stanford Uni- versity, which I guess we include in the Bay Area area of interest. But Santa Clara County as a whole, we pretty much consider that out of our immediate area.*

Morris: One of the points that is made in the foundation literature is that there seems to be a kind of network of interrelationships between universities and foundations and the government, and that people quite often move back and forth.

*During 1975, Mrs. Kuhn commented, she became involved in assisting the Santa Clara County community trust to become a more active organization, and that John May was also helpful in this reorganization. In a note written December 3, 1975, she added: "The story of the Community Trust of Santa Clara County is a short one, and also very disappointing. There are many signs, however, that this twenty-one year old organization which has been suffering from slipping assets and almost no visibility will now begin to move forward. For one thing, there is a growing public awareness of the usefulness of their kind of foundation. Also, in the case of this one, some money has been raised and pledged, to cover costs of a three year development program. This has enabled the directors to employ a part time 'consultant' who has been on the job for six months. Development -is occurring! A brochure is nearly ready for circulation --" Kuhn: That's very true. We perhaps are limited somewhat by our own history and somewhat by the fact there are so many applicants from the immediate Bay Area, which really means the five counties around the Bay, excluding Santa Clara County.

Morris: Your experience with government and how it works is probably much more than most of the other people on the Distribution Committee. I wonder if you're aware particularly of government grants and how they either show the way or follow things the Foundation.may have done?

Kuhn: I think my:experience has been really on a different level; I've had some experience in state politics or local politics, but not really on the level of grantsmanship or of being concerned at all with the granting bodies for gcvernment money. I think I have no real background in that at all.

Interim .Funding

Kuhn: I've observed how it works. For example, we made a grant to one of the local hospitals because they were starting up a new program. I think we had agreed to supply ten percent of the start-up costs of that new program. Their application to the government came through giving a hundred percent, so our grant wasn't used. Therefore, it was withdrawn and that was a very nice conclusion to it. This doesn't happen too often, unfortunately.

Very often we might make a grant to pull something together during an interim period before government money begins to come, or between grants, when there's every likelihood that the next support money will come within a few months or within a short time. Sometimes this is true also of UBAC. There may be-a very good agency that has a temporary slump or a temporary period when machinery isn't quite grinding out the support money from UBAC, and yet we know that they will get it within the foreseeable future.

We've done some of that, keeping some groups afloat and programs afloat until other money comes in. This is a very valuable thing to do if the agency or the program is worth keeping alive; it's a very helpful thing to do. And this is something that probably only a foundation, such as ours, can do. If your support comes from UBAC or comes from federal funds, there's no way you can get it moved up faster; you may get some retroactive money, but you have to pay the bills during that interim period and this is one way I think we've been very helpful. Morris: Does this mean things that need the money within the next thirty days to pay the bills, and maybe only go on for four five months?

Kuhn : Yes. Very often it has been that short a time. We've offered to do certain things, and the minute the other money comes, we're relieved of that obligation. That's one way that 's rather unsung, unheralded, but which I think is a very effective way of being usef'ul in the community.

Morris: Do things of this nature come in on an urgency basis because this situation has arisen right now?

Kuhn : I'd say so.

Morris: Did this come from a policy discussion?

Kuhn : Each one, yes, has been discussed at our meetings, I think I remember times when we might be polled by telephone or by letter -- something that seemed like an emergency measure -- and we ratified it the next meeting. This is a way in which we can be useful. I think it is part Of the responsibility to the community.

Morris : Is the need for this kind of action initiated by the staff rather than the board?

Kuhn: It's initiated by the applicant who comes to the Foundation with an empty pocketbook and says: Look, can you help? If the staff thinks it's sufficiently worthy and necessary they'll go to bat for it and try to get help as quickly as possible. Usually those things can be anticipated a little bit farther ahead so that they may come up at one of the regular meetings.

Morris : You- mentioned that when you first came aboard, as the saying is in government circles, that there was considerable time spent on some accounting problems that needed to be worked out. Was that in the policy session?

Kuhn : Yes, at the alternate meetings which were devoted pretty much to that kind of business.

Morris: I was wondering if there are any other of the policy decisions that you felt had been particularly useful or really moved the Foundation forward in its thinking. Kuhn: I think this comes up all the time, not particularly in one meeting or another. In all the meetings, we're very apt to keep our eyes focussed somewhat on the future, on the trends or on the way things appear to be going. I don't think any of us feel that we can stand still or that all these agencies are going to be coming in year after year with the same kind of application.

This is one of the things that a foundation can do that a government body can't do. We are very much in the business of supporting (that over-used word) innovative programs, things that may be new and may have a different slant or a different set of people behind them, where we think that this kind of money could be well spent, and is the only kind of money that perhaps could be gotten for start-up seed money.

Morris: Have there been discussions about what happens to an innovative program, particularly when it comes from a new organization, when the grant runs out?

Kuhn: Yes. A couple of things happen. For example, sometimes grant applications have come in from a rather skimpy Little group of people -- I mean skimpy in the fact that maybe there are only four directors, or there's one chairman or president and three or four directors; there seems to be a thin layer of Leadership in this project, whatever it is. In some cases, we've gone back to them and said: We're sure this has merit, and it redly might succeed, but it isn 't broad enough and it isn't broadly supported by many people. You don't seem to have involved the neighborhood or the school system or whatever it is that perhaps should be involved in this. And then very often, they've come in six months Later with a far better presentation, with much more evidence of support.

Sometimes ,I can remember feeling very dubious about an organization that had almost no support within its own board membership.

Morrks : That's an interesting idea. In other words, the applicant's board didn't seem to really want to go into that activity?

Kuhn : The board isn't caring a whole Lot about it, isn't showing evidence of supporting it. One wonders if they don 't care enough about it, why should they be applying for a grant from somebody else? These are little things that come up all the time. It does affect your judgment about whether it's really a good application or not. Evaluation of Results

Morris: When the Foundation has funded such groups, how successful have they been? What kind of follow-up is there?

Kuhn: We require a certain amount of reporting on projects. It's a very important thing for the grantee to be aware of the fact that he has a responsibility to us, and its important for us to know if we've failed, if we've made the wrQng decision in granting to that group. It's exh-emely helpful to us; it may help us to sharpen our judgment.

Morris: Does the board have the time to hear something about these follow-up reports?

Kuhn : Not as much as we'd like. This sometimes happens at the off-docket meeting; sometimes we do have reports on either successes or failures or both. The staff, I must say, is very good on this. They do a great deal more follow-up work and read all these reports that come in, and perhaps they only bring to us the ones they think are particularly on target, or that have some real helpfulness to us in making future decisions. It's gratifying if you hear that whatever thousands of dollars were given to a certain organization have succeeded in getting them started or getting them on their own.

In almost every case, of course, the one question is: How will you support yourselves after this grant runs out? This is always a key question, because we're not in the business of supporting indefinitely, unless it's a case of a trust where the requirement is that certain funds be given on a continuing basis. But there are very few of those.

Morris: And the Distribution Committee, as I understand it, doesn't really have an active role in dispensing of that trust, unless there's some serious question?

Kuhn : No. They're almost all (although there's a considerable amount of lee- way) in a general. field of interest, not in specifics -- not for blue- eyed orphans or anything specific to tie it down to.

This is one thing we do regret, that there isn't more time for reviewing -- looking back and looking at the present to see how these projects are doing.

Morris: For instance, in a field like mental health that the Foundation has been making grants in for a number of years, when the staff person says you have a new application in this field, does he review some of the other things that the Foundation has supported in this field so you can get a sense of the continuity? Kuhn : Yes. I-'think that usually has. a bearing on it. The staff having been with the. Foundation, they're very familiar with the past records, and some members of the committee have good'long memories and recall why a certain grant was made at one time or another. Very often, of course, the same people are still applying. There's a certain amount of memory work involved in it.

Morris: What's the criteria, whether this later application from the same organization will be funded?

Kuhn : I don't think we'd want to make another grant for the same purpose, because that,really would just put us out of business if we just kept carrying the same things along all the time. 7. SOME FOUNDATION ISSUES AND OBSERVATIONS

Innovation and Social Change

Morris: What is the borderline between innovation and social change, which seems to be another topic that's getting considerable discussion?

Kuhn : I think social change is happening, and sometimes you have to run to catch up with it. Innovation is perhaps recognizing social change a little faster than somebody else does [laughing] -- being aware sooner. Many innovative programs are perhaps innovative because the time is right and because someone had the wisdom to see it happening and jump into it with the ideas that would make something work. We certainly are aware of the changing social picture.

Morris: Do you think that there have been basic changes in the social sphere?

Kuhn : I think so; I think so very much. We're certainly all much more aware of minority problems, of attempts to equalize educational opportunities. There are hundreds of different ways in which we see evidence of this. You really could hardly be alive and able to read these days or able to hear without being aware that there's tremendous change going on.

Morris: That's true, but in some contexts social change is viewedwith alarm. Does the board get much -- ?

Kuhn : I don't think you.see reactionary attitudes. I have some rather reactionary attitudes about things that I think are too far out or too flimsy to my way of thinking. But this is the value of discussing it with these other members. I think all of us have at times changed our thinking a little bit because we've listened to the reasons that are given for doing something that perhaps just left to our own devices we wouldn't have done. Board and Staff Debate the Docket of Applications

Kuhn :. Most of us, when we look at the docket, for example, will run through and check the ones that we object to or that we think are good. It would be interesting; I haven't kept track of the number, but I know in many cases I've listened to what was said about something that I might have been about to vote "no" on, and reassessed it and decided that I was wrong, that this is something that should be accepted.

What's given on the docket is really a summary of what the staff has gone into in great detail. So, naturally what we get is a kind of resume', and it can't answer all the questions. That's why we take a great deal of time asking questions of whichever staff person has taken up a project. And the other two staff members also review these before they come to a meeting.

Morris: In other words, the items that are on the docket have been reviewed by all three of the staff members?

Kuhn: They have been investigated thoroughly by one staff member and reviewed by the other two.

Morris: Separately, or do the three of them sit down and chew this all over?

Kuhn: I think they chew it over together. Before they come to us, we know what the staff recommendations are. And they don't always agree among themselves; sometimes there's a difference of opinion there.

Morris: What happens when there's a difference of opinion on staff? How does the board treat that?

Kuhn: We just ask a lot of questions until we find out what the reasons are for the staff either being pro or con.

Morris: Does the Distribution Committee divide up -- some members ask this kind of question and some members are more knowledgeable or more interested in certain kinds of proposals?

Kuhn: I suppose that each one of us may have favorite things that we like to talk about. One thing that keeps occurring over and over again is questions of budgets and looking at budgets carefully to see if they really have been padded somewhat or if there's something that could be removed. Certainly the men on the board are very good at that; they have a built- in sense about how figures should tell a story and they're very quick at pointing out weaknesses of that kind. That isn't my forte, SO 1 usually keep out of that kind of thing. I can see it when they point Kuhn : it out to me, but I usually don't discover it for myself.

[Interruption. 1

There's really, I would say, no great division or no clear-cut division of interest. Dan Koshland, I think, is interested in every single application that comes in, and seems to know something about it. I think most of us feel either we know something about that field already or we want to know more or we don't know anything about it and therefore we're interested in hearing and learning something about it.

Morris: How about other businessmen on the committee? And the bankers?

Kuhn: There are two bankers. Ira Hall is a very canny businessman, and Brooks Walker is j.ust as quick as he can be; he's very good at figures. Their questions are extremely good.

Morris: When the bankers and the businessmen start talking about the broad social concerns involved, do they ever speak in terms of their own companies' philanthropic activities or this growing concern with the social responsibility of corporations?

Kuhn : This has come into discussion sometimes. I wouldn't say they spend much time mentioning what their own institutions are doing, but they msy speak of the banking business in general, or the business community in general.

As you know, the banks and most large business firms have taken a very active part in helping minority programs, both in investment and affirmative action programs and so on. I think there's a very healthy attitude on the part of business.

Of course, we have especially aware and responsible business people on our committee.

Investment Questions : Two As~ects

Morris: Was it the committee or' the staff that raised the question of the social investment or the social aspect of the Foundation' s own investments?

Kuhn: I think this came up because Ira Hall asked questions about it when he was a fairly new member of the cornittee. It was shortly after the time that Stanford University had been looking over its policies and reviewing them, and maybe they'd gone through a period of soul-searching or record-searching. At this time, Ira Hall was on their board of trustees and was very much aware of that situation. So it caused us to look into Kuhn : our finds ' investment .

Morris : You have another' committee that handles Foundation investments?

Kuhn : Yes, the' Trustees Committee,the bank trustees. We have very little connection with them. They have one responsibility, and that is to manage the funds -- thoroughly, honestly, carefilly -- and report on it thoroughly.

Whoever the director is -- John May did this for years and was very much in touch; Lew White also has worked with them very closely -- we feel quite free to go to them with suggestions from time to time and to report anything, such as this conversation we had with Ira. We do not have any real interplay as two groups; we don't meet togeth'er and we don't talk together. But any individual from that group may --

Morris: Do they ever send a representative to sit in on a Distribution Committee meeting?

Kuhn : No, but they do appoint one person. Clark Beise was appointed by the trustee banks.

We don't take a responsibility for the investment or the handling of those funds, thank Heaven! That's a separate, enormous job in itself.

Morris: I gather that the Rosenberg Foundation did appoint a board committee to look at that and it did take them a lot of additional time to consider this aspect.

Kuhn: We've asked questions and we've gotten reports from our trustee banks. We know exactly what that group is doing, and they know what we're doing. But the separation seems to have worked quite well.

Morris: Did your committee come to any conclusions that they would like to recommend to the trustee banks in terms of this?

Kuhn : I don't think we did officially; no formal action was taken, as I remember. At the time, it was a rather minor part of our portfolio and didn't seem to be that important. Now, maybe it would have been, if we found we had an enormous amount invested in some areas where great social wrongs were carried on. But in our case, it didn't really seem to be that crucial, and I think we just dropped it.

Morris: You mentioned grants that were, in effect, investments in minority businesses. Was this a departure from the committee's point of view?

Kuhn : I don't think so; I think not. In that case, I think we pretty much Kuhn : followed the lead of two or three men who had had some experiences with this. There were two men at least on our committee who had had some experience with that who were very encouraging about our making that kind of grant.

Morris: With the firm, or with the organization that was making the proposal?

Kuhn : Yes. Recently we made a grant to a group in Oakland who are subsidizing some remodeling, refurbishing of old houses to give employment and housing to some minority groups. An interesting project, and we hope and we think it's going to work out quite well.

Morris: So that was directed to both employment and housing. That is interesting.

Community Participation in a Grant Decision: Dependent Children

Morris: Somewhere in the back of my head, I seem to recall someone telling me that there was one group that came to the Foundation and wanted a grant that they could then disburse to groups that they felt they knew more of, in terms of getting out into the community.

Kuhn : Are you thinking about the Coleman Trust? Gertrude Coleman left about a quarter of a million dollars to the San Francisco Foundation to establish an alternative to juvenile hall for neglected and abandoned children. Could that be it?

Morris : That could be.

Kuhn : Lew White carried the ball on this. He was almost a battered and abused child himself as a result, because there was a group who very much dis- liked the way the committee that he set up handled it. Mrs. Jean Jacobs, who is a real force in the juvenile justice system, worked very closely with Lew White. They found people who were willing to serve on a committee to decide what would be the very best possible use of the money that Mrs. Coleman had left.

They had meetings which were very successful in the beginning. Then a dissident group got hold of it and began to pack the meetings and dis- rupt the meetings and tried to carry the ball, and finally ended up making quite a scene. They put up posters in front of the Crocker Bank and they'd slip things under Mr. Solomon's door -- really an ugly demonstration a- gainst what this committee was trying to do. Someone has brought a class action suit against the Foundation naming all of us, especially Lew White as their target. I think it's all being resolved and they're getting on with their business and there's going to be a fine, new Kuhn : program for these children who don't belong in juvenile hall. Not for juvenile delinquents but just unfortunate children. Pinehurst used to be such a place in San Francisco; it was a receiving home, the only name I can think of for it -- just a temporary shelter for children who were not delinquent but whose parent or parents couldn't keep them.

Morris: But there is at the moment nothing available in this kind of service for these kids?

Kuhn : It's developing, and there soon will be, I haven't asked Lew recently just how fast they've moved on it. The law suit is not slowing them down, I'm sure; that will undoubtedly just peter out.

It was an unfortunate thing because they tried to go at it in a very democratic way, by getting many voices, and many people to get into it and get interested, get involved. But it turned out that one little group really wanted to take it over and run it their own way and were very ugly about it. I don't !bhink Lew and the others have given up the democratic system, by anylmeans, but it was a great disappoint- ment to have this thing happen, because all it dogs is to, waste time and effort and money and cast a kind of cloud eve; what this good committee was trying to do.

Morris: Particularly when you think you've set It up in the right'way. Did the Distribution Committee suggest to Lew that he work this way, or did he come and say: We've got this trust and this is how we want to manage it.

Kuhn : We discussed it. When I first came in, there were several requests for funds from Mrs. Coleman's trust, and it was decided that what she really intended was to do one major thing that would be a lasting, ongoing program that would take care of this particular kind of problem. I don't know how it will be resolved, but I'm sure it will be a good result; when it finally is open for business, they'll do a good job.

Organizational and Program Cycles

Morris: It's interesting that you say that there used to be receiving homes which met a similar kind of a need. What's happened in society that such facilities disappeared, so that the question is coming around again?

Kuhn: I don't know what happened to Pinehurst, except that there was probably a skimpy endowment and costs increased. It was probably just a victim of the times. Kuhn : When they finally decided to go out of business, they sold the property and gave whatever was left of their endowment to various organizations. I remember that Edgewood received some of the Pinehurst money, and I'm sure probably Sunny Hills and perhaps some of the other homes for emotionally disturbed children received some. They didn't have enough to keep going as a receiving home, for lack of a better word, and decided to go out of business. Morris : Do you perceive, then, cycles in the life of an agency or organiza%ion,

<. . or cycles in the way problems surface and are dealth with?

Kuhn : I suppose there is a cycle as a pattern that they're apt to follow. I really haven't thought about it too seriously. I think that if these programs are important in the community, they're going to bounce back again in one form or another, and this is one evidence of it. I'm sure this kind of thing does happen. Many good organizations have fallen by the wayside; but very often something comes along to take its place, with new blood, new life, new money, new interest.

Morris : I've heard this comment a number of times in regard to the alternative services -- that they function well for maybe three to five years, but something happens to them either in the way of meeting the need or -

Kuhn : Sometimes it's a lack of leadership -- not a lack of need, probably, but maybe a lack of leadership to maintain it, and perhaps a lack of funds because some government program has come along that takes the place of what used to be a privately-supported institution. You've seen lots of that happening. What used to be privately-supported in many cases has been taken over by public support.

Morris : Yes. That seems a fairly major kind of social change when you think about it on a ten or twenty year basis.

I should have asked you this earlier when I was asking about grant proposals that you felt were particularly successful. Have you had any feelings about the kinds of things that have not worked well in proposals that have come to you?

Kuhn : I think, as we were saying, some organizations have an awfully thin layer of support from the top -- almost just a name on a letterhead or just a short list of names -- and I think in those cases where there didn't seem to be a very broad base for a program, we made some grants that perhaps we knew were perhaps a bit risky, but they seemed like a good shot to take. Why not try this? They have a good idea, if they can make it work. Sometimes things haven't worked and they've had to drop the whole thing before the grant even ran out. Kuhn: Those are really the reasons for failure in most cases. In almost every case, of course, the grantee -- it's part of his job, I suppose, to make us feel that we've done a marvelous thing choosing them [laughing]. They like to tell us that our judgment was good.

Impact of Grants

Morris: Do you get any feedback from grantees that having been funded by the San Francisco Foundation has made their life easier in terms of recognition in the community or accomplishing what it is they set out to do?

Kuhn : Yes. I think there's no question. In a sense, it's because there is a certain amount of prestige attached to the name -- I mean, if you're in the business of looking for grants and if you can say: We've gotten a grant from the San Francisco Foundation, this does probably put a 'Good Housekkeping Seal of Approval' on some organizations. It has helped them in many cases to develop matching funds for a Ford grant or for another grant.

Very often other local foundations will put up a certain percentage of what you need, if you can get two or three other foundations to put up the same amount or more. But there's a lot of help given by even a small grant, sometimes, in the fact that it's been reviewed thoroughly and looked into thoroughly by our good staff. People know that, and therefore it gives them an awfully good credential for looking f'urther.

Morris: Roughly, how many foundations has the San Francisco Foundation made joint grants with? I've read through that California Foundation Directory, which looks to me as if it lists several hundred trusts and foundations, family foundations, some small --

Kuhn : I really don't think I can answer that. Lew White will tell you. I'm aware of times that it 's happened, but I can 't tell you the number . 8. 1974: INDICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Choosing a New Executive Director

Morris: How long before John May announced his retirement officialy did the committee start considering how they would go about finding a new director?

Kuhn: I think we began worrying about it a long time before. The active search began nine or ten months before hPs actual. retirement date, and there were numerous long meetings.

We may have made a mistake in employing a professional 'head hunter' to help us in this. It seemed to ps that we might regret doing it ourselves if we came up with poor results; we might feel we should have gone the professional. route and, gotten some 'real. expert in the field to help us with our early mistakes, at least, and give us guidance. And also, because we were willing to look al.1 over the country to find the right person, it seemed wise to have somebody who was in touch with people all over the country. So that was another reason.

As it turned out, this was a very efficient person who had had some success in finding the right person in Chicago and other places -- not just foundation people. Chicago I think of in particular, because he 'd found a foundation director for Chicago. There, again, it happened to be the 'boy next door' [laughter] or somebody who was right there anyway.

But in this case, when Martin Paley was finally chosen, it was not through our 'head hunter' at all; it was through the fact that it occurred to someone that Martin Paley was a possible choice, even though he appeared to be very much involved in his --

Morris: It was his own firm, wasn't it, located in the East Bay?

Kuhn: He was president of a firm in hospital planning research. It was a company that belongs to the Arthur Little Company, but a separate part of it. Kuhn: I think, in the beginning, it probably never occurred to anybody that he would be interested in leaving that post. It was very interesting to us that he was willing to. In fact, he became very much interested in coming to the Foundation, not in a negative way but as a positive move which he felt would be good for his own development and his own future.

Morris: What had the committee worked out in terms of what it wanted in a director that appealed to Martin?

Kuhn: We were very much handicapped in looking for a new person because we were spoiled. We were very much spoiled by having had John May in that spot for twenty-five years, when we began looking. John May and the San Francisco Foundation were really synonymous in most people's minds. Most people probably couldn 't separate the two ; if you thought John May, you'd think Foundation, if you'd think Foundation, you'd often think John May. So this was a curious situation.

In looking for a replacement for him, I suppose in the back of our heads we had someone like John in mind -- somebody who had broad interests and was knowledgeable and wise and had many of the talents, the sensitivity and the awareness that John has always displayed, and also the fact that he's a very articulate person, able to express himself and other people's opinions extremely clearly. He does a good job in his own thinking process and he's also very good at synthesizing what other people are coming up with.

So what we really were looking for was someone who had all the good qualities that John had, plus perhaps a little Bore of business training or business skill, because the Foundation had gotten to be much bigger -- the size of the operation, the size of the office -- it was just a bigger business than it used to be.

But it was curious, after all these long, long meetings and discussions, and after meeting people from all over, to find someone who met all these requirements right here.

Morris: It occurs to me that it's an interesting exercise because if you also searched all across the country, then it would reassure you that the boy next door was up to standards.

Kuhn: As I said, this is another reason that we felt justified in finding a professional person to help us, because we knew that we wouldn't have any way of reaching people all over. We also felt that we might make a mistake in not searching far enough if we just settled for the easiest choice.

But this came in as very much a last minute decision. It was very Kuhn: interesting, because we had exhausted every other possibility that we'd been exploring. It boiled down to a very narrow choice. But when it became evident that Martin Pdey would come to us, that threw a different light on it, because then it was a relatively simple task to sort that out and decide on him.

One point about the experience of looking for a new director: this was a very good experience for members of the committee because very often our meetings are so rull and so busy that we find ourselves reacting to whatever the immediate business at hand is, and expressing our views and learning more about whatever the project is. Even though we have the open docket meetings, they've been devoted a great deal of the time to business matters and to looking for a new director and changing our accounting system.

We all found, I think, that although it was arduous and very time- consuming, meeting with dl the possible Candidates, it was awfully good for us to go through the experience of discussing and really learning more about our own attitudes and what we were looking for, really, and how we all reacted to various people who came to us. I think all of us felt that this was a very healthy thing to experience. I hope we don't have to do it again for a long, long time, but all of us said: This has been very, very healthy, very good for us to have this much discussion among ourselves about what our objectives are and what our aims are.

I think one thing that also came about through that process is that it also has made us better friends, on a better understanding with each other.

Morris : Did you end up with any new resolves as a group or any new sense of direction?

Kuhn: I don't think it changed any of our subsequent actions or our thinking particularly. It just gave another di ension to working with each other. It was a very valuable thing. As I say, I don't hope to go through it again very soon; I think it was an excellent thing for us, but thank Heaven there won't be a need for it, I'm sure, in the foreseeable future.

Initiating Grants

Kuhn: The other thing that came up repeatedly in the questions that many of the candidates asked us was: How much do you expect of your new director in developing programs in the community? Kuhn: This is one area where we re.cognize, and I think all feel, that we would like to do more than we"re doing. Partly because of the limitation of time and the' fact that these. are all busy people on the Distribution Committee, who can take the' time to read through the' docket' and attend the meetings and concentrate on the problems at hand for a few hours a month, but not when it comes to reaching out into the community to try to. develop new programs to initiate applications for grants. This is one rather serious lack; blame it on a lack of time.

Also, because our staff, for the most part, have been overworked; it's awfully hard to be out looking for new projects when you're so bogged down with the things high on your desk. Of course, it'; not just the desk work, it 's the number of telephone calls, the people who call for information and who want referrals to the proper agency or the proper foundation. An enormous amount of time goes into this kind of work.

So aside from the paper work that is so heavy, there's also an enormous amount of personal contacts. And then, of course, the staff has to know and understand the agency that's making the request, so there's a lot of field work involved in it too. Ideally, we all think that if there were the time and the money, this would be a fine thing, if we had more staff time available--to develop and initiate more things in the community.

Morris: What kinds of things would these be?

Kuhn: I don't think that we have refined it that much. I don 't think any ~f us has said: We should be doing more in this or in that. I do remember a couple of times that we've said: It's too bad, isn't it, that we have never had an application from San Francisco City College? (It has a new name now, I think -- community college.) It's too bad that we haven't had an application from some excellent program at San Francisco State University.

I 'm sure the staff are often aware of ways in which the Foundation could be more effective and could be helprul if there were just the time and the manpower to do it.

Morris: Is this similar to the literature on the founding of Rasenberg? Mrs. Ganyard used to go down the Valley and say: Isn 't there something interesting you're doing here that we could help on? -- in other words, seeking out either promising people or trouble spots in the community.

Kuhn : The same idea. GrMts to the Arts

Morris: You said something on the phone that we haven't gotten to, and that was to the effect that : Thank heavens, the arts are in favor again.

Kuhn: Did I say that, just like that? [laughing. 1

Morris: Well, maybe I put the question wrong. I may have been respo~dingto the annual reports; in the last five or six years, there seem to be more --

Kuhn : A heavy emphasis on education and welfare and somewhat on environmental problems. I don't think I meant "Thank heavens, it's come back into style again," but I think that we are seeing more emphasis on it and certainly more public support for the arts. Of course, here again, this is government money -- federal money, and state money to a certain, smaller extent. This is a great thing, if you can have a well-balanced community.

Morris: In this field of the arts, do you feel that the Foundation began making grants after Ford and National Endowment for the Arts and things like that?

Kuhn : I think the Foundation has been very much interested for a long time. I didn't mean to imply that there had been any period when interest in the arts had dried up at dl. Some of our committee members are extremely active -- Bill Orrick was president of the Opera Association, Emmett Solomon has been extremely active in the Symphony Association. Many of us have an interest in the arts, and an active interest. But the applications, perhaps, have not been as frequent or as pressing as some of the others. It's easier, perhaps, to put off a program that doesn't seem to have just the pressing human need that some of the welfare programs have .

Morris: Then there's sort of a hybrid category that has looked quite interesting -- I think of Ruth Asawa and her art in the classroom projects, and various grants that seem to be a combination of rehabilitation through experience vith the arts for young epople who have gotten into various problems .

Kuhn: One of Sally Lilienthal's projects at the San Francisco MUS~M is one that we supported, too. It was a very interesting project which I think is on its om now. But this kind of thing hasn't been ignored; I don 't think I meant to imply that.

Morris: No, I know that, and I know some of the trusts have been rdated directly Morris: to the --

Kuhn: What I really think I meant was that in rather recent years, with the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities and our state comission, a lot more public money is going into those channels, and I 'm delighted that it is.

Women's Issues and Volunteerism

Morris: I think we're about at the point where you need to mention the things that I may not have gotten to.

Kuhn : We did mention the fact that there are now two women on the committee?

Morris : Yes. Mrs. Goldman recently joined the board.

Kuhn: I think you were asking if I thought I was a spokeperson for the woman's view, and I 'd say hardly. [~aughin~.]

For one thing, I think there've been very few really good applications from any woman's group as such. The ones that have come in I thought were dreamed up and didn 't really merit consideration. I think I was out-voted on one of them. And it's funny, isn't it? Being the only woman at that time, I should have been all out for it. But I'm rather leery of that kind of thing.

I didn't think it was particularly approprkate for the Foundation to get involved in greater employment opportunities for women in the downtown area. This kind of thing can very well be taken care of by women working together. I 'm hooked on volunteerism, and I object stren- uously when I think that any group is coming to us asking for a grant for money to employ someone to do a job that they could do better themselves as a committee.

We had an experience at Edgewood, before I was president of that board; it was ten years ago, I suppose, or twelve years ago. Our endowment was dvindling fast because we had to keep pouring money into operations. The City and County of San Francisco was not paying enough to D~Veven a third of the cost of keeping the disturbed children that we had there, and we were at a very crucial point in Edgewood's career; we were either about to go out of business ar revamp.

The first suggestion was -- a very strong suggestion -- that we should employ someone to make a professional study of Edgewood and our problems. That was voted down, partly because we really didn't have the money to pay for a professional study, and also because some of us felt Kuhn : that we wouldn't learn very much by having somebody else do it.

So we did a self-study which was extremely valuable; it couldn't have been better. I guess because I've had this one vaLuable experience, I'm sensitive about wanting to get somebody else to do for a fee something which, in many cases, people would benefit by doing themselves, working it out themselves, and learning as they go. That Edgewood board will never get over the experience of really digging in and finding out where they were going and why they were going wrong and how they could improve in it, and the results were very dramatic.

Morris: Did you have anybody on the board who had some skill in how you went about doing this kind of a study?

Kuhn: I think we probably all felt we were very skillful. Caroline Charles was president of the board at the time; she's skillful. There were a number of people who were very experienced, very able. We simply di- vided ourselves up into subcommittees to attack various aspects of the problem, and it worked like a charm.

Morris: And you supplied that excellent Junior League and League of Women Voters training. It is remarkably useful in any number of things.

Kuhn : It 's awfully good training, yes . 9. CONCLUDING NOTE ON FOUNDATION PEOPLE AND POLICY

Morris: You mentioned Caroline Charles. I wonder if the two of you ever sit down and discuss philanthropy in general and foundations in particular, since you're both on foundation boards.

Kuhn: We talk about it in general and in..particular whenever we see each other; yes, we 're very good friends . [~aughing.I It 's only hard to catch Caroline for more than a minute at a time, she 's such a busy person.

Norris : Is it within the ethics of being a foundation committee member to talk shop with old fr5ends who are -- ?

Kuhn: I think in general terms, yes. Actually, the Foundation has no great secrets, you know; all of our grants are a matter of record. I think what isn't a matter of record -- perhaps the ones that are turned down -- or if there's anything that seems to be private in nature, we certainly don't divulge it. But there's a great area of overlapping interests be- txeen foundations. I wouldn't ask her questions about the Stanford trustees that I would feel vere confidential.

Morris : I was thinking more of--if you yourself, in the course of experience and observation, felt that something was developing in an area of health care, for instance, that you hadn't yet made up your mind about, would you --

Kuhn: I think, you know, a lot of us talk to Leslie Luttgens or Caroline Charles or whoever we happen to knox xho's knowledgeable in one way or another.

Morris : And trade general ideas.

Kuhn : And then, of course, the local foundations have a group called the Founda- tion Executives Group.

Morris : Yes. And there 's also the National Cauncil on Foundations.

Kuhn : That 's different. But the local foundations do a great deal of exchang- ing information.

Morris: Between the staffs. Kuhn: And then, just because many of us know each other aside from our business pursuits -- the business of foundations -- we often have conversations that are related to foundation business but are not --

Morris : Specific?

Kuhn: I've calledmanyofthosepeople andaskedspecificallyaboutthisthing and that thing. It's very helpful, and it helps all of us to exchange ideas. Lew White has been the one who has carried the ball pretty much with the Foundation Executives Group, and he finds it very helpful.

Morris: I should think it would be. They're remarkably challenging individuals. Going back to volunteerism for a minute, your comment that you feel some things are done better without staff -- was this a factor at all in the Foundation's --

Kuhn: Not without staff, but some things I think are done better without a professional study made. It would be awfully hard to do a good job without some regular staff. So I meant to pay so many thousands of dollars for a study to be made of an organization is just, by the nature of it, going to be two steps removed from that organization, because they'll never really get their teeth into it.

Morris: Have applications ever been rejected because the committee felt the project would fhction better as a primarily volunteer activity? I was thinking of Consumer Action, which ran for several years on largely volunteer staff and, I understand, was not re-funded when it requested a grant to increase its paid staff.

Kuhn: Ireallydon'tknowwhat thereasonswereabout that.

Morris : I think we 've covered a lot of territory. Is there any thought that we've missed or idea that you'd like to include?

Kuhn: I've had fun expressing my views about the importance of volunteerism, and of course talking about the San Francisco Foundation is always pretty intriguing .

Morris: We've talked about some of the things that foundations can do, rAfter

five years of working- with the Distribution Committee, do you think there are things that foundations cannot do or are not as successful doing?

Kuhn: Well, for one thing, I don't think foundations can or should make the applicant -- grantee -- become too dependent because we know, and they should know, that it won't go on for more than a certain length of time. Most of the grants that we make are for a period of one year, renewable Kuhn: perhaps after another look at the end of the first year. Occasionally there are three year grants, sometimes on a declining scale over a three- year period. Very often the grants are made definitely with a terminal date, and then again, perhaps the bulk of them are made for one year with nothing said about the door being open to come back.

Morris: That's partly in the design of the application.

Kuhn : Yes. And of'ten it's only for a purpose that will be achieved at the end of that time. If we don't definitely say it's a terminal grant, of course we 're going to hear from those people again [laughing] ; it's only human nature .

Morris: Thank you very much for your time.

Kuhn: If you think of anything else that hasn't been covered, give me a cdl.

Morris: I may well send a question or two along with the transcript.

[~ndof interview. 1

Interviewer-Editor: Gabrielle Morris Transcriber: Lee Steinback Final Typist: Michelle GuilbeauLt The Bancroft Library University of ~alifornia/~erkeley Regional Oral History Office

Bay Area Foundation History Series Volume IV

William Mat son Roth

THE TRADITION OF VOLUNTARY SOLUTIONS TO. PUBLIC PROBLEMS

An Interview Conducted by Gabrielle Morris

@ 1976 by The Regents of the University of California TABLE OF CONTENTS -- William Matson Roth

INTERVIEW HISTORY

1. COMMUNITY SERVICE: SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING AND URBAN REXEWAL ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL OF CIVIC UNITY

2. FOUNDATION PROCESSES On the San Francisco Foundation Distribution Committee, 1963 The Filer Commission, 1974 Board-Staff Relationships New Directions in the 1970s: Rosenberg Foundation and Others

3. PATTERNS OF GIVING AND GETTING Fund-Seekers ' Needs United Bay Area Crusade and Company Giving Innovative Grants vs . Operating Budget Family Foundations

4. PRESSURES ON PHILANTHROPY Investment Policies Tax Policies Government Granting Access for Advocacy Activities Private Giving Influence of Young People

5. IDEAS FROM THE FILER COMMISSION Equity in Giving Quality Control

6. COMMUNITY PROBL'EM-SOLVING: PERSONAL SATISFACTION AND PMCTICAL RESULTS Changing Social Requirements John May, San Francisco Foundation Executive Spurring Citizen Responsibility Some Observations on San Francisco, 1969-1975 Urban Problems Ghirardelli Square Rosenberg Foundat ion San Francisco Schools Committee Youthf'ul Advocates: University of California Students and Vanguard Foundation

INDEX INTERVIEW HISTORY

This short interview with William Matson Roth is focused on his observations of contemporary philanthropy and his experience as a trustee of the Rosenberg and other Bay Area foundations. It barely touches on his business career; public service in Washington, San Francisco, and as a regent of the University of California; and his abiding interest in the American political system which should be the subjects of a longer memoir.

Two conversations were recorded, on 11 September 1974 and 7 January 1975, in Mr. Roth's comfortable book-filled office on Market Street near San Francisco's waterfront. Tall, well-built, and well-tailored, he spoke briefly and almost diffidently of his years of participation in a variety of civic organizations, and conveyed a strong personal sense of social responsibility. What seem to continue to interest him most are methods for working out local solutions to community problems and ways for encouraging the initiative and potential of youth.

Since these principles are embodied in the grant-making guidelines of the Rosenberg Foundation, he has found service on its board satisfying. He also is obviously proud and approving of his daughter Maggie's participation in the Vanguard Foundation. This enterprising organization is funded and operated by people under thirty and is discussed in some detail in the interview in this Foundation History series with Obie Benz and Peter Stern.

Accustomed as he is to journalists' questions, Mr. Roth cheerfully announced no concern about how the transcript of the interviews might read. When it was sent to him, he did review it with care and revised a word or phrase here and there.

Interviewer-Editor

22 June 1976 Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley ÿÿ ate of Interview: 11 September 19741

1. COMMUNITY SERVICE: SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING AM) URBAN ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL FOR CIVIC UNITY

Morris: What I'd like to start with, if I might, is the origins of your own interest in philanthropy that led you to become involved in the foundations in the Bay Area.

Roth: It's a bad question to begin with; let's start on specifics.

Morris: All right. Then, in the Bay Area, we would start with your appointment to the San Francisco Foundation board; that was in 1960, and you served until 1963.

Roth: I left for Washington in August of '63.

Morris: . That. was the period when the San Francisco Foundation was making a number of grants to neighborhood projects. You'd been president of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal [SPUR]--

Roth: I think I was at that point president of SPUR. As I remember, some of those projects, however, were funded through separate foundations that were administered by John May, particularly Sally Lilienthal's, MadeleineRussell's--maybe not Sally's, but MadeleineRussell. I'm not sure where the funding for neighborhood programs came from. I believe it was Martha Gerbode,in part.

Morris: I wondered if this kind of experience was what led the banks to select you as their appointee to the Foundation board.

Rot h : I don't know why they did. I'd been president of SPUR for some time; before that, I'd been president of the Council for Civic Unity, which was an organization that worked in the interracial field.

Morris: Was this also one of the things that SPUR was interested in?

Roth : No. SPUR was basically directed to planning and housing--physical problems of the city. Morris : As president of it, do you recall what your major interests were?

Roth : At that time, we were concerned, among other things, by the lack of an adequate planning apparatus for the city and a lack of any sense of requirement for planning within City Hall. There were some good people, as I remember, on the Planning Commission, but the director of planning and the staff were inadequate. We were concerned with bringing about a change there, which was ultimately done.

When I left for Washington, my last recommendation was that the mayor should have a major position in his office--someone to coordinate the planning aspects of city government and who would be directly answerable to the mayor. Shelley, I think, appointed such a person; I think he 's still there.

It was during this period, or shortly thereafter, that they got Al Jacobs; he's been a good planning director and beefed up the staff. This was the major thrust at that point.

Morris : The notes from the San ~ranciscoFoundation annual reports refer to neighborhood associations. There was a comment that there were twenty or thirty of them in the various districts of San Francisco. I wondered if SPUR had had anything to do with--

Roth: Neighborhood associations usually served a variety of purposes, none of them very adequately. During this period, as I remember, we tried to get a stronger coordinating planning organization set up. We started out with one district--I can't remember whether it was the Richmond District or not--and we secured flmding for it so that we could get a staff person to work for it.

Morris: For each of the associations as they were formed?

Roth : We started it out with one, and then after that was done went to another.

Morris : Were they primarily interested in, in the early sixties, physical necessities in development?

Rot h : Yes. We're talking here about physical planning. We also started something called the Market Street Association; again, it was an organization to be responsible for physical planning on Market Street. Out of this grew the rejuvenation of Market Street, for better or worse (1'm not sure which).

Morris : [~aughter1 It certainly made it busy along here. 2. FOUNDATION PROCESSES

On the San Francisco Foundation Distribution Committee, 1963

Morris: Was the Foundation board interested in the social planning aspects of these neighborhood associations?

Roth : Yes. A lot of the grants were for social projects, although this, again, didn't relate quite as much to SPUR.

Morris: One question that's interested me in the foundations in general: when a person like yourself is appointed to the board, is there any kind of orientation or explanation of what the board's function is, or how it works?

Roth : Yes. Every board differs very much. Of course, San Francisco Foundation at that point was in its infancy; it didn't have as much money. There were some very good people on the board.

Morris: Who in particular?

Roth : Dan Koshland. Overall, it was a very good board, I think--fairly open, fairly liberal. Its assets have grown much larger since then, and its responsibilities are larger now. I've lost a little bit of the sense of how it operates presently.

Morris: You were on the board about the time their assets began to multiply.

Roth: They were just beginning to multiply at that point rather rapidly; it accelerated much more after that. The Filer Commission, 1974

Morris: Then you went to Washington, so that you were not around to accept a second term on the Distribution Committee.

Roth: I was away for five or six years.

Morris: In '63 and '64, the Patman Committee was holding hearings in Washing- ton on the nature of foundations and their business relationships. I wonder if you had an opportunity either to observe them or to testify, maybe.

Roth: I'mcurrentlyonacommission; Iwas supposedtochairitbut Iran for office and couldn't, although I stayed on the commission. It's to look at, not just foundations, but private giving in relationship to taxation.*

Morris: Is this an offshoot of that 1969 Tax Reform Act?

Roth: No, it was started at the instance of John Rockefeller, when he was frustrated in getting the White House to come to terms with some of the problems of giving, which include changes in tax laws that would affect private giving. Finally, he talked to Wilbur Mills and suggested an independent committee to work with him and the Ways and Means Committee, and the White House.

Morris: So that's still going on?

Roth : It' s still going on, but I couldn't chair it at the time. A man called John Filer is; he's the president of--I think it's Aetna Life. It will now be called the Filer Commission. It should have an important impact in this area.

Morris: When you returned from Washington, were you immediately approached to join the Rosenberg Foundation board?

Roth: Shortly thereafter, as I remember.

*The Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs. Board-Staf f Relationships

Morris: In the current literature on foundations, there are comments that, in foundations which are staffed, sometimes professional staff and the board are not too clear as to each other's responsibilities and their territory of operation. I wonder if you could comment on that in relation to the foundations you've worked with.

Rot h : Foundations are rather small, at least the ones here, so that it really shouldn't be too much of a problem, I don't think. I remember talking to the head of one foundation who said that he would be very disturbed if his recommendations were ever overriden by the board. To me that's a little absurd. Neither at the San Francisco Foundation nor at Rosenberg has the board ever felt any compunction about over- riding a director's recommendation; that's the work of the board.

I think when you get into the larger foundations in the East,

then some more clarification perhaps is needed. Basically, the ' director recommends; the board either approves or disapproves.

Morris: In the case of the San Francisco and the Rosenberg foundations, John May and Ruth Chance have done most of the work-up on projects. I wondered if that is the primary information that goes into the decision-making process?

Rot h : Yes, it is.

Morris: Do board members ever have contact with any of the projects themselves?

Roth : Sometimes, in terms of their other activities. They, after all, represent a fairly broad spectrum of people who have fingers in various pies in the area, so they have some basis on which to evaluate. In addition, of course, Ruth and John will use consultants to develop that information.

Morris: Do board members themselves ever go to people they may know of, to talk about either a specific area of grants or--

Rot h : Sure.

Morris: How much time, roughly, does it take to keep up with one's responsibilities on the board?

Roth: ' Rosenberg is a fairly small foundation. The material prepared by Ruth is so good and so thorough--she really did a marvelous job. So it was a question of reading that, basically. Morris: Does that usually give you enough information to decide beforehand that this is something you want to vote for?

Roth : On the whole, yes.

Morris: Is it a matter of the appealingness and timeliness of a specific project, or do you try to balance out so much money to this area and so much money to that area in a given agenda?

Roth: It will be aifferent for Rosenberg and San Francisco. Rosenberg has recently gone through an evaluation of its program, partly faced by tremendous increase of requests, and has established new guidelines. So it's also a question of looking at a project in relationship to those guidelines.

New Directions in the 1970s: Rosenberg Foundation and Others

Morris: That was one of the things I wanted to ask you about--the reasons for the redefinition.

Roth: One is that social requirements change. But, also, I think the main reason was the tremendous proliferation of requests and the fact that, staff-wise, you just couldn't handle them, from an administrative point of view. Secondly, by proliferation of grants, you could lose any real impact.

We decided to give, in one category, larger grants, and decided to narrow our field of giving. But, also, not necessarily say that we wouldn't continue a grant after the first few years.

Morris: How did you arrive at these guidelines?

Roth: Just by discussion over a very long period.

Morris: When you say that you're prepared now to make a longer term commitment, is this on a basis that at the beginning you will go--it used to be a maximum of three years, didn't it?

Roth : No. It has to be reviewed every year; we make no guarantee--we would sometimes go to three yews. I think we might even go further. But, again, we look at it each year.

Morris: Would that be on the basis of the way the program is developing or on the basis of your judgment of the urgency of the need for that kind of program? Rot h : Both.

Morris : I think Ruth Chance said that the areas that you decided to narrow down to were early childhood and teenage.

Roth : Teenagers, particularly where the teenagers are developing the programs themselves, participating in the development of them.

Morris : And early childhood?

Roth : Early childhood, which Rosenberg has always been interested in.

Morris : Has this ever been discussed--whether or not the interest in children should continue as the primary focus of Rosenberg?

Roth : Frequently.

Morris: Does the board feel that all the possibilities in programs for children have been explored?

Rot h : I don't quite understand the question.

Morris: Let me rephrase it: have you discus'sed whether or not they should continue in the field of children as their primary interest? Has it been discussed from the point of view of dropping that emphasis for a broader one, or of changing the emphasis within the area?

Roth : Both, on the basis that you have to narrow your field because the effect has not been in terms of broadening the area but of narrowing it to those areas that are most critical within the field.

Morris : Do you have time as a board to talk about what's happening in the general community, both in terms of children and programs?

Roth : You do it in terms of--we had a series of meetings on general policy; usually you do it in terms of specific items, which then gets you into general discussion.

Morris : Do you think that these two areas will continue to be where Rosenberg will go, or will that be reevaluated?

Roth : No, I think it will continue.

Morris: Where will this lead in terms of the kinds of grants the foundations approve?

Roth : I'll just have to see, that's all. Morris : I gather that there's been some discussion that, from its past experience in the areas, the Foundation itself might initiate programs in areas they felt had not been attended to. Did this cause much soul-searching from the board?

Rot h : As I said, these discussions on policy continued for about a year, before Ruth retired. We have a new director. This will probably mean certain new emphases; I'm not clear myself yet of what sort.

What's the name of the new director of the San Francisco Foundation?

Morris : Martin Paley.

Roth : What 's his background?

Morris : His background has been health facilities planning, and prior to that, he was with the Bay Area Social Planning Council, I believe.

Mi-. Wilson's background has been in California, also, hasn't it?

Roth : Yes.

Morris : It's interesting that there are two new directors at the same time; I wonder if they will work as closely together as Mi-. May and Mrs. Chance did?

Roth : I hope so. By the way, have you got the Vanguard Foundation and Obie Benz on your list?

Morris : I am aware of them.

Rot h : I think you should talk to them; they're one of the most interesting of the foundations. They're doing very good work.

Morris : When did they appear on the scene?

Rot h : Maybe three years ago. A bunch of young kids, including my daughter, who is young. I think they're doing impressive work.

Morris : What kinds of things are they doing that Rosenberg, for instance, has not gone into?

Roth : They're doing mope--some--social action things. Sometimes it comes pretty close to the political.

Morris : Did they feel that the older foundations in the Bay Area were not doing the things that ought to be done? Roth: I think they started out not knowing quite what they felt. I think they were influenced by Dave Hunter and that other foundation that existed at one point and was put out of business. But you have such a tremendous call for money, particularly on new things that start up in the social field. Certainly, neither Rosenberg nor van Loben Sels nor the San Francisco Foundation cover these things. San Fran- cisco Foundation, being a community foundation, wouldn't even touch a number of these kinds of projects.

Morris: It sounds as if you feel that there is a need for funding on different bases.

Roth: Yes.

Morris: I understand that the 1969 Tax Reform Act is fairly stern on the subject of anything that can be construed as political action. How do the more activist foundations cope with this?

Roth: They just try to tread a thin line in between. Stern Family Fund, for instance, in Washington, is in this position.

Morris: Do you refer projects back and forth to each other?

Roth : I think Ruth and John did. 3. PATTERNS OF GIVING AND GETTING

Fund-Seekers' Needs

Roth: One of the problems with organizations is to find out where foundation money might be available. Also, organizations starting often don't know how to approach a foundation. One time we even thought at Rosenberg of having a service organization on foundations. We didn't do it, but this is a problem.

Morris: Do people ever come to you directly--

Roth: Continually.

Morris: --wishing to start a new kind of project in the community? Do you offer advice and counsel or tell them to go see Ruth or Obie?

Roth: I try to offer advice and counsel.

Morris: Do they come to you primarily for money or primarily for advice on the shape of what they're trying to do?

Rot h : Both. Mostly, they know what they want to do, and they're concerned about the source of financing.

Morris: I've wondered, as sort of an abstract question, how much the acquiring of funds is a method of validating that what you want to do is a good and worthwhile thing to do.

Roth: I think it's a practical thing of needing some money to do some work. United Bay Area Crusade an* Company Giving

Morris: In the larger and older, traditional agencies, as the budgets have grown, in general do they shift staff and space around in order to try something new?

Roth: It's a problem. With large organizations like United Bay Area Crusade [UBAC], although they've had a committee to look at new developments, it's hard for them to shift. Leslie Luttgens, who is president now, who is also on Rosenberg, is very good in this regard. But UBAC (and I suppose most such things) are in part dominated by the corporations. I don't know why it should be, because they don't participate that much.

Morris: They're not where the major portion of UBAC funds come from?

Roth: It comes from people who work for that corporation. I haven't seen a breakdown, but corporate giving itself, I've always felt, in this city is not adequate. The giving of corporate executives, senior attorneys, et cetera, is not adequate.

Morris : ,Even through the corporate foundations?

Roth: The good corporate foundations are in companies that are dominated by a family--the Haases and Levi Strauss, and Zellerbach; they're the only two important ones I know of.

Morris: In the Guide to California Foundations* that was put together a couple of years ago, I was startled at the number of company foundations that do exist.

Roth: Yes, but they exist merely as a mechanism within the corporate structure to simplify giving. They proliferate their grants wherever the company has plants; it's pretty much giving specifically related to the corporation--its objectives.

Morris: As a public relations thing rather than as a conscious response to a stated need?

*Peter D. Abrahams, Julie T. Casson, Dennis B. Daul, Common College, California, 1973. Roth : Yes. For very few important social programs here in this area could you go to any place except Zellerbach and Levi Strauss. What you would get from major corporations like Southern Pacific and PG&E or insurance companies, you could put into one nostril.

Morris : aught er 1 That ' s an interesting comment. Has this problem ever been discussed by those of you on the Rosenberg who are struggling to cope with this ever-prolif erating number of innovative grant appli- cat ions?

Roth: They all think they're doing great, probably putting too much into charity. UBAC, I've always felt, in part is a protection to them; therefore, they should be supporting it more than they are.

Morris: They should be supporting UBAC more than they are?

Roth : I think so. But, also, if you look at the list of major givers to UBAC, the record of a great many people in the business community-- lawyers, too--is wretched.

Innovative Grants vs. Operating Budget

Morris: I wonder if you've ever given any thought to the proportion, in philanthropy, of the innovative, seed money grant that has distinguished Rosenberg, in relation to the more conservative base support-- building funds and scholarships and gifts to the Red Cross, which seem to be where a number of the company foundation gifts go.

Does this reflect the way our society works?

Roth: Yes. Basically, innovative new programs tend to be supported by individuals of some wealth. In this city, the Jewish community has played an important part. They have given generously to cultural institutions and to those having to do with social change. The Catholic community gives nothing, except to Catholic charities, as far as I've seen. At least in this kind, the Jewish communities will play a very important part.

It also is dependent upon families of wealth, such as the Crockers, who--up till ten or fifteen years ago--had family members still in the management of the companies that had been founded by the families--those companies; their foundations were more generous. When you got the changeover to a corporate, nonfamily management, then they began to look at giving in a different sense, and much less of a feeling of obligation to the community per se and more to the overall needs of the corporation as a corporation. Morris: That's an interesting comment about the different sections of the community. Is this a matter of family patterns and how families raise their children?

Roth : There I don't know; but the kids in Vanguard were children of people who'd been brought up with some sense of giving--the Gerbode children. Arthur Gerbode was very generous; I think Madeleine Russell's children--this kind of thing. So it's interesting to me that these foundations went ahead.

Family Foundations

Morris: That's true. You yourself serve on a family foundation board, don't you?

Roth : Yes. It's very small. We try to stick in part to conservation, as does the Heller Foundation in part, too.

Morris: Has your experience with the San Francisco and the Rosenberg foundations shaped at all your thinking on how you deal with the family foundation?

Roth: No. Again, various members of the family just try to get what they want through; itts an entirely different situation. No, it's not at such a size that you begin to have a formal application procedure-- it's more an avenue for personal giving, protected by the foundation structure.

Morris: It seems to me, reading in the literature, that there are a very great variety in the kinds of foundations and their purposes, as you've just been describing. I wonder if this has been a factor in the legislative response to foundations--if they're not as clear as they might be on the different kinds of foundations.

Roth: I just don't know. Actually, in the Bay Area and in California, there aren't that many foundations of any substance; therets really very few. Certainly, tax legislation has been influenced by the bad example of the Irvine Foundation. Of course, therets been some dissent within that family anyhow; Joan Irvine said that she was responsible for stirring up some things in Washington.

Morris: I gather that, yes. I also gather that the regulations that have recently been established have made the actual operations of a small, conscientious organization like Rosenberg much more complicated-- Roth: And expensive.

Morris: --and expensive, which thereby cuts into the amount that's available for philanthropic grants. Do you think that's likely to be reviewed?

Roth : Yes, it will be reviewed. Probably not changed. 4. PRESSURES ON PHILANTHROPY

Investment Policies

Morris: How about the recent discussions of the investment policy of the foundations; I gather that there has been a committee in Rosenberg to consider the social implications of investments.

Roth : Yes. We developed a policy. This is an issue that's come up in the university, too. It's still a very squashy area.

Morris: Squashy?

Roth: There's no very easy or precise way to formulate rules. We'll have to see whether an analytical organization put together with the help of Ford and Harvard will be able to put out material that will allow investment committees to make some intelligent decisions in these areas.

Morris: Has this movement, I guess you'd call it, caused any comments in the investment world--in the corporate world?

Roth : Oh, yes. They're increasingly concerned, because organized social or stockholder pressure is always a nuisance.

Morris: It's a nuisance, rather than something they feel should be taken into consideration?

Roth: Basically,theyfeelitis anuisance,or apartof doingbusiness, I suppose.

Morris: But the people who are corporate directors and executives and top management are also citizens of the community in which they live, and the nation, affected by the same social pressures that those who are seeking foundation grants are subject to. Ro th : Of course, it differs a lot. Some people are aware and are concerned about these problems; but, basically, I think the corporate executive is so hemmed in by the requirements of his own corporate existence that he tends to look at things through a pair of organizational eyes.

Tax Policies

Morris: Foundation funds are often spoken of as the risk capital of society. I wonder what are the forces that are going now that are likely to either increase the community's interest in innovative matters or that are going to limit the kinds of things foundations are able to do?

Roth: The biggest challenge, I suppose, is in the tax area--limitations that have been put by government. If you follow the theory of Stan Surrey,* which would be along the British line, then any tax-deductible charitable gift is really a distribution of revenue by government. Therefore, it's better for the government to do it directly. His proposal would be, again, very much like the British one--that a charitable gift would not be deductible, but would be matched by government .

Morris: Who would decide where these monies would go?

Roth: An individual would give it to a charity, and then the government would match that. That's pretty much the British system, with some variations. Those of us who have trouble with this concept just feel that, outside of the extra bureaucratic cost of doing it this way, the voluntary activity side of our society should be free of government direction; it's better to allow the government to make the payment, in effect, through individual giving.

Morris: And allowing the tax deduction, thereby cutting down the revenues the government gets?

Roth: That's right, which is the present case. The other case against this-- an even more serious one--is that there is inequity in that the wealthier person has a choice of paying taxes or making a gift, which the person in the lower income bracket does not.

*Stanley S . Surrey, attorney and tax authority, assistant secretary for tax policy, Treasury Department, 1961-69. Ed. Roth: That, I think, has to be met and changed. There are many possibilities there, such as giving people in the lower income bracket a tax credit instead of a tax deduction; there are several ways of going at that.

Morris: This is in connection with tax policy in general, not just the tax policy in relation to philanthropic giving?

Roth: No, this is in relationship to philanthropic giving.

Government Grant ing

Morris: I gather that when the federal government began to make sizable grants in some areas, this cut down on Rosenberg Foundation activities in those areas. I was thinking of juvenile delinquency; applications didn't come to Rosenberg for a few years because there was so much money available in various federal grant programs .

Roth: I suppose that was true, but Rosenberg had no trouble spending its money.

Morris: I wondered if it affected, at all, the direction that project applications were going--the shaping of them?

Roth : I don't know.

Morris: Then in the last few years, when government grants have been cut back in some areas, did this then increase the number of applications coming to the local foundations?

Roth: Very much so, including the more traditional type of grant applications. They were left often without continuing operating funds.

Morris: That's a curious kind of a fluctuation in funding.

Roth: Which I suppose you always get.

Morris: I was struck, in reading both Mr. Weaver's and Mr. Nielsen's books on philanthropy in general in the United States, by the comment that there is a three-way feedback of personnel and ideas between the government and the foundations and the universities at the top level. You seem to have a foot in all three of those worlds; I wonder if you could comment on the strengths and weaknesses of that kind of movement of people.

Roth: You're talking about flow of-- Morris: --individuals back and forth between the three institutions.

Roth: Yes; I suppose that Wally's point was that there is a certain rigidity, sameness of point of view, that develops. That's probably true. This is why I'm really more interested in smaller foundations like Rosenberg and Vanguard. But, at the same time, the larger foundations which he was talking about play a terribly important function and I think do often very, very good work.

Access for Advocacv Activities

Morris: Is it a matter, then, that the smaller, more local foundations like Rosenberg provide a means of access for different kinds of people to get a hearing for their ideas?

Roth : Yes, and smaller enterprises just, starting.

Stern Fund, again, is one of them. It's very difficult to find this kind of money. The large upsurge in the.last couple of years of public interest law firms, for instance, often do a very important job, particularly when the Office of Economic Opportunity legal assistance programs were cut back. So you had a number of these organizations starting; where do they get funding? Larger foundations often have problems.

Morris: So that if they can get a &art with a local foundation, then they have a better base to go to either the government or one of the large national foundations?

Roth : Yes. It's not only local; it's how many foundations in the country will give to advocacy type of activities or ones looking towards rather profound social change.

Morris: That does sound as if the more advocacy organizations you had, the more likelihood there would be, particularly in the legal area, of eventually having an effect on legislation and government. What is the dividing line between what's political and what's not? That seems to be a matter of some interest both to the government and to foundations .

Roth : It's true in the environmental area; it's true in the consumer area; it's true in many areas. Private Giving

Morris: I wonder if you could summarize what has been the carry-over for you between your work with the University and the Foundation, and the business world.

Rot h : Foundations, of course, are only one part of the pattern of giving, and not the largest by a long shot. Because they have staff, they're in a better position to do a good, valiant evaluation of projects. But a lot of new work in many areas depends on patterns of private giving within the community.

Here, unfortunately--I don't know whether most communities are like the Bay Area, but I think they probably are--there's probably only a very small handf'ul of people who are in a position to give and are willing to give, in the social area. In the cultural area, such elements as social prestige and visibility are more apparent; it's easier to get support, atleast for the larger, more obvious institutions. But, even there, when you get away from museums and symphonies and operas, it's difficult to get continuing support for the arts with a small 'a'.

I helped start a couple of organizations that are designed to help in the housing area. Another is something called the Citizens League, trying to develop a new way of structuring summer programs for youth. So, I saw something of the receiving end as well. There are certainly many, many unfunded and met needs.

Influence of Youne Peo~le

Morris: You've come back again to the idea of programs for youth, organized and directed by young people. What do you think are the possibilities there? How young and how much--?

Roth: In the Citizens League, we had an evaluation board made up of representatives of some of the groups receiving funds; it worked very well in the initial phases, but started deteriorating towards the end.

Morris: What age young people?

Roth: These are teenagers. And then some of the Rosenberg Foundation grants--there was one, I remember, organized by a professor at San Francisco State, in which students who were having trouble with Roth: learning actually became teachers for younger children in public schools. It seemed to work brilliantly.

Morris: There seem to have been a number of projects of this kind, both foundation-funded and even within a school's own budget. Do you have a sense that this kind of youth involvement is becoming part of the accepted way that education and other youth institutions will function?

Roth: Not really.

Morris: I believe you have another appointment, If I may, I'd like to bring back any questions after I've seen the transcript of today's interview.

Roth : I'm afraid I haven't been too helpful.

Morris: We do appreciate your interest in the various aspects of California history our office documents for future scholars in these interview manuscripts, like fine printing and the shipping industry.

Roth: Several years ago I told Ruth Teiser I'd do a session with her on the publishing copmany I started with Jane Grabhorn, and never was able to do it. ÿÿ ate of Interview: 7 January 19751

5. IDEAS FROM THE FILER COMMISSION

Equity in Giving

Morris: The Filer Commission was scheduled to complete its preliminary studies in 1974. Is it too soon to have an idea of what directions your discussions and findings are going to take?

Roth: These kinds of problems are coming up, particularly the social justification for private giving, which Stan Surrey and a group of people articulate, as I think I said before, in a somewhat different way. Namely, that giving as a tax deduction means that it is subsidized by government, and they think the present tax structure, as it relates to giving, is inequitable--

Morris: Is inequitable?

Roth: Inequitable. And they would propose something closer to the British system, which, in effect, does not give you a deduction, but in which the government gives the equivalent of a tax to the charity or to the educational institution which receives your gift. What they propose is that the government match any gift given to an institution.

The problem is that studies we've made indicate that you need that deduction, particularly to get the larger gifts, which most often are the most important. But this does bring up the question of equity in giving. Namely, that someone in the higher ranges of income has a choice of paying taxes or giving, up to a certain point, to charitable enterprises , which someone in the lower brackets, because of the so-called 'standard deduction', does not have.

*The Commission's final report is entitled ''Giving in America: Toward a Stronger Voluntary Sector." A coalition of public interest, social action, and volunteer groups acting as advisors to the Commission have also published a report, entitled "Private Philanthropy: Vital and Innovative? Or Passive and Irrelevant?" Quality Control

Morris: Has the Filer Commission been looking into whether or not private foundations should develop some kind of supervisory organization? How did that go?

Roth: Yes. Well, we haven't made any decisions yet on where we'll come out, but I think we all feel that the present self-policing is very inadequate, in that the mechanisms for quality control, if you will, in the industry have to be further developed, or to be developed for them.

Morris: Is this something that the Rosenberg board has talked about? Or has this been primarily a staff kind of a concern? I understand there's been some talk amongst the foundations with staff in San Francisco that they might form a--

Roth: Oh, joint organization?

Morris: Joint organization, both to keep track of their own activities and to provide information to people seeking data.

Roth: Yes. Well, I've also felt that they should go a step further and consider the formation of a small office which would assist people looking for funds and who are not sophisticated in writing grant proposals, et cetera. I think this is badly needed, and I think it should be jointly done by all the foundations in an area.

Morris: Could the same organization serve as a public information and assistance service and also self-policing, for the foundations; or are we talking about two different things?

Roth: No, I think that's a different thing. I think that self-policing is a national thing. You are talking about standards, you're talking about auditing practices. In this area, a lot of progress has been made already. I think that has to be done on a national basis, though.

Morris: The Tax Reform Act of '69 did not set up any auditing or accounting procedures ?

Roth: Yes, it did. And, of course, theoretically, the four percent assessment was to take care of the government's auditing of foundations, although the cost was nowhere as large as the four percent. Roth: They required much more intricate reporting. But I'm thinking more in terms of ways of reporting to the public, so that it can be quite clear what a foundation has done, and how it's spent its money.

Morris: This is coming from within foundations, rather than from the media?

Roth : I don't quite follow you.

Morris: You're suggesting the foundations should report out more, on their own initiative, as to what they're doing and--

Roth: Oh, sure.

Morris: It's interesting that the media does not report more fully on the kinds of projects funded by local foundations. Has there been any discussion of this?

Roth : No. It's an interesting point. I've never seen the media report on them at all, except for some articles on the Ford Foundation. Have you?

Morris: In the Bay Area, if you're looking for them, you find some. But from the foundations themselves, all I find are occasional listings of such-and-such foundation having made so many grants this year, or a listing of grantees and amounts.

Roth: Well, maybe a joint office could help in this area, too. 6. COMMUNITY PROBLEM-SOLVING : PERSONAL SATISFACTION AND PRACTICAL RESULTS

Morris: You were speaking before about the private foundations' role in continuing the kinds of institutions in problem-solving that this country has had. Which were youthinking of?

Roth: Well, I think in an area such as this, we seem to think many of the newer programs that began to set patterns came from the government. But whether you're talking about child care or mental health, rural education, or a whole host of areas, important work was often first done in the private sector, by volunteer groups with help from the foundations--early child-care centers, the Haight-Ashbury Clinic; the work that's now beginning to get going on child abuse is another example; the whole environmental area, which was completely a product of the private sector forcing their will on government. It didn't come from government. It has been more the tradition in this country than it has in any other.

Morris: The old New England barn-raising idea, that when something needs attention, people get together in their own communities to solve it?

Roth : Yes. It has a certain anti-government flavor, perhaps. But what has evolved over this period in many cases is a kind of partnership between the private sector and the public sector. This has been enriching to both.

Channinn Social Reauirements

Morris: When we talked before, you mentioned that social requirements change. I wondered if you could expand on that. I was thinking of the early 1960s, when you were on the San Francisco Foundation Distribution Committee. Minority groups and mental health after-care services Morris : and legay aid projects really stood out as receiving, oh, three or four grants a year for different projects in each field for four or five years in a row. Were these the urgent requirements at that time?

Roth: I guess they were. My memory isn't that clear. We were certainly-- as you know--in the sixties, not at all as far ahead as we are now in the minority area. I think this was,all through the fifties and sixties as well, a major problem. I guess there was a lot of funding in those days for specific problems as they related to minorities.

Morris : Would these have been considered innovations at the time, by the Distribution Committee?

Roth: I suppose. Although. San Francisco Foundation,,of course, has a little different function than something such as the Rosenberg. It is a community foundation. It looks, as all foundations do, for innovative programs, but also it has to look at the city's needs on a rather broad scale, as I see it. And, so, their focus cannot be quite as sharp, it seems to me, as the focus of a smaller, private foundation can.

Morris : In other words, because they're a community foundation, they need to respond to a broader range of--

Ro th: Yes. I could see them, youhow, not necessarily always feeling they had to break new ground. Because they--it seems to me--as a broad, community foundation, have a larger responsibility to continue to fund good programs that are not being funded by, let's say, United Crusade. Of course, they're much bigger now than when I was on the board.

Morris : That's true. It's interesting to see how their assets have grown. I wonder if, as the assets increased, you recall whether either John May, as executive, or members of the Distribution Committee would have said: We have more money; therefore, can we rethink how we are going about this?

Roth : I don't know; ask him.

Morris : I'm going back to him, but you were on his board at that time, which is why I wanted to--

Roth : Well, I haven't followed their pattern of giving closely enough to know how much it has, if it has, changed. John May, San Francisco Foundation Executive

Morris: Many people have commented that John has been a distinguished executive director, but they have not really pinpointed what the qualities are that it takes to be an executive director.

Roth: Well, I thought John was really very open about new ideas, that he had a wide range of interests, in the social, the esthetic, educational areas. He did not have a closed mind. He was interested, too, in performance, which a director has to be.

Morris: Performance?

Roth: By someone who's asking for a grant. Are they capable of carrying out the program which, however good it may be, they're asking money for? Can they do it--is the capability there? To make that judgment you have to be pretty tough, and make tough judgments. I think John had that capability, as Ruth did.

Morris: This is to make the judgments before the grant is given?

Roth: Before the grant is given, yes. And then to follow it up, after the grant has been given, too. To see whether it should be renewed, for instance. Of course, this depends pretty much on his sense of people, the judgment as to how effective they have been or may be in the future. This is an important part in this area.

Morris: I wonder, with the number of people receiving grants, particularly over a period of years, if the Distribution Committee felt that it did get a sense of feedback on the progress of grants, so that they could judge whether they were successes or failures?

Roth: I can't really remember how that worked in the San Francisco Founda- tion. At Rosenberg, we do get very considerable feedback.

Morris: On projects as they're completing, or when that person comes back looking for funding for a new project?

Roth: Both.

Morris: The process of evaluation seems to be one that is as knotty as any other in foundat ions.

Roth: Yes. Morris: I'm going a bit backwards here. I didn't ask how you had become involved in the Council for Civic Unity. You mentioned that you had been active in that before you joined the San Francisco Fouridation board. How did you take up the Council for Civic Unity?

Roth : I can't remember. I was asked to go on the board, and then I helped with some fund-raising, and then I became president for a number of years. How I first got started, I can't remember.

Morris: Was this at the same time that you were president of SPUR?

Roth: It was before that. It was probably in the early fifties. It was prior to becoming president of SPUR, I think.

Morris: Going through my notes on SPUR, I came across a comment that one of the things that SPUR was involved in was to increase the interest of individual citizens in their own responsibility to the city. Was this something that you worked on, particularly?

Roth : No. I think that 's sort of a broad statement. I don 't know where that came from.

Morris: It was in an editorial in the SanFrancisco News in June of 1962.

Roth: Basically, it has--and, I think, rather successfully--tried to involve its membership in, through its luncheon committee meetings, various aspects of the city--city planning. I have not been active since I was chairman, about three or four years ago.

Morris: I can see where you'd run out of time to--

Roth: I'm still on the executive board, but I don't go, and I should get off entirely. It's gotten into some broader areas now, that I question. But, on the whole, I think it really continues to do a very useful Job .

Morris: It was this idea of involving individual citizens in being concerned with what happens to their city, I think, that caught my interest.

Rot h: Yes.

Morris: Particularly in view of what you were saying earlier about the responsibility of the private sector and its tradition. Roth: Well, I think SPUR also, some years ago, began to go out to the neighborhoods and to develop programs there, ultimately to develop organizations within, let's say, the Richmond that allow citizen participation on a neighborhood basis to develop. And I think this has been a good part of this program.

Morris: Is the interest in getting citizens active, or is it more in better streetlights and--?

Roth: Getting them active, so that they'll have better streetlights and better zoning, better transportat ion--

Morris: Primarily the businessmen in an area--is that who it appeals to?

Roth : No, no. Primarily people who live there. People who are concerned about transportation to get work, and people who are concerned about high-rise buildings blocking their view.

Morris: I understand that a citizen group won its campaign to have high-rise on Russian Hill turned down recently.

Roth : I don't know about that. Haven't been too many victories recently that I know of.

Some Observations on San Francisco, 1969-1975

Urban Problems

Morris: There was a gap of several years in your Bay Area activities, while you were in Washington, as a special representative for trade negotiations.

Roth: Sixty-three to--I think I came back in '69.

Morris: Did this change your perspective on things California and Bay Area?

Roth: Not terribly.

Morris: Were you living in Washington?

Roth: Yes. Morris : So that you were completely out of the area.

Roth : Well, I would come back once a month for a regents1 meeting, and that's it.

Morris: Did you find when you came back to live here and took up the things you'd been involved with before, that the social requirements had changed? Was there any noticeable difference after the six-year gap?

Roth : o on^ pause] Oh, I wasn't aware that much of a gap. There were no new emerging problems in the city. High-rise had really taken over in the downtown area. The Planning Commission's design study wasn't finished yet, and I thought there was not enough control; I still feel there isn't. Education was beginning to go downhill more than when I left. Urban renewal, which I had backed and tried to help when I was with SPUR, before I left for Washington, I thought--as it turned out--had done a less than adequate job, to say the least.

Morris: Were you prepared for the political complications that beset urban renewal?

Roth: Why, no. I was delighted by them. I mean, it was just unfortunate that in these things, political implications (ifyou want to use that euphemism) were a little late. At least, thank God, they came.

Morris: When you say political euphemism--

Roth : I assume what you mean is that the inhabitants of an area finally got tired of being thrown out of their houses--

Morris: Yes. And when you go to the board of supervisors and the legislature, then it becomes a political fssue?

Rot h : I think, in many cases, the main burden of the effort actually was a legal one, rather than political. They took urban renewal to court, as they did in Yerba Buena, and as they did in the Western Addition.

Morris : Were some of the legal organizations that had been established in the late fifties--were they by then functioning well enough to be of assistance in this kind of--?

Rot h : Yes, I think some of them played--but I thought, and I may be wrong, that the main legal groups that played a part in recent years established in the sixties and not the fifties; but I may be wrong there. Morris: I think the first one started--it was about. '58 or '59. Then, with the help of some foundation grants, expanded in the early sixties.

Roth: Now, I see Jerry Brown's taking some of their members into his government. Sign of the times.

Morris: Is that also a sign of the success of certain ideas and methods?

Roth : Yes, it is.

Ghirardelli Square

Morris: When you came back to the Bay Area, you shortly went onto the Rosenberg Foundation board. Weren't you at that time also developing Ghirardelli Square?

Roth : Yes. But I was doingthat when I was in Washington. I'd spend a weekend here when I came out for a regents' meeting.

Morris: How do you organize your time?

Roth: Not very well.

Morris: I wouldn't say that. You seem to manage to keep a full-scale business career going and participate in civic affairs on a state-wide scale, and also still have time for something on a much different level of visibility, like the Rosenberg Foundation.

Roth: Actually, in recent years, I haven't worked at my business full-time, so I haven't been in a corporate position since before I left for Washington. So I've been fairly flexible.

Morris: Ghirardelli Square was an entertainment as much as a business proposition?

Roth: I like to think that most things you do are entertaining as well as something else.

Ghirardelli Square was done neither as an entertainment nor entirely as a business venture, but to prove that it could be done, in part--that you could take old structures and re-use them and not go to high-rise in a particular area.

Morris: And not just wipe the ground clean and start over again? Rot h : Yes.

Morris: Do you feel you've demonstrated the point?

Roth : Yes. And effectively.

Rosenberg Foundat ion

Morris: What was there about the Rosenberg Foundation that was important enough to you so that you made the time for it?

Roth: I was impressed by the pattern of grants that they'd given. Really, it Is probably the most important foundation in the state, over a long period, certainly in the education picture and the younger children area. I have enjoyed it tremendously, I'd say.

Morris: Were there particular grants that you were familiar with before you joined the Rosenberg board?

Roth: No, but they sent the material, what they'd done. And, of course, I was very early on terribly impressed by Ruth; she was superb. So I've enjoyed my association there tremendously.

Morris: Had you been acquainted with Ruth Chance beforehand in other civic ventures?

Roth: No.

Morris: Was it the interest in children and youth, particularly, that lured you into joining them?

Roth : No, no. You're asking why people do certain things, and I've never been quite sure why one does a particular thing. It's a whole host of reasons.

San Francisco Schools Commission

Roth : I'm about to chair this commission of Riles's on the San Francisco schools, and why I'd want to do anything as idiotic as that, except-- among other things, my wife [laughs] is terribly interested in it. Morris: I see. And so you got the nomination, and she's the one that's prodding you?

Roth : Yes, she's the one. So I said I'd do it--at least tentatively. Just to see if the pieces can be put together.

Morris : I'm unclear about that. Did Superintendent Riles initiate this committee, or did it come from San Francisco?

Rot h : No. He made some criticisms of the San Francisco school system, which were resented, and so proposed a resolution to put together a commission, along with Wally Sterling and Charlie Hitch. The three of them are in the process of doing this.

Morris : About the public schools?

Roth : To advise the school district on the San Francisco school system.

Morris : I would think you have an interesting opportunity there. The urban school problem has been with us for some time.

Roth : Probably this is one of the worst.

Morris: By independent judgments and standards? That's too bad for the kids involved.

Roth : Well, for the city, too. Because people won't stay if the schools are bad.

Morris: The families will not stay if the schools are bad?

Roth : No. Unless they have to.

Morris: How is that going to be financed?

Rot h : We don't know yet. Partly San Francisco Foundation, partly Ford, and a little from the city, but it's not entirely clear.

Morris: Your experience with Rosenberg should be a help in that. San Francisco Chronicle, May 14, 1976

2onsider what. to-do about'the San 'Rancisco I public schools, the~~edRiles Commission is currently circulating-a suximary report. We think certah of. its condusions deserve atten-

.. leading :San .Franciscans 'grew "out "of: the embarrassmeqt 'of~rWilsoxir;Riles;:"state-superintendent- 'of.public:':; instruction;inite*stifyhg to congress that the schools here were in need of frtotal reform .and overhaul." .The,-m.hmis- sion's approach to:tw overhaul is refreshing.It . urga. the .Board of,Educatioi.r.to..delegate more authority,aid'respo&ibfli~.to.principals;.who, it .:says, should :: have.:the ':.final: decision. in selecting - and..&ig$ng, teacherq.. and- . staff within their ...<..F;-,ijl:iyn( .I :); .:\.=:; . i . . . ,, . . .. .>. .. . ._,...... -...... ,'$ :::PRINC~AL~,,~()R~ER,mu~t ene;authorityto.manage their:schools and must be.held accountable for effective performance; ...... -... says the commission. - , ' ,' .I,...... :That authority and thataccouitability defined,an appraisal and:evaluation system for . .al1:school personnel.should- be; developed. The commission -impliesit@, shocked .by.the Iack of * appraisal.and,evalgation . . for . . school~,itaffs.. . . li ;;, . . . ,,, . , . .>,, ': A further.-rec6mmendation;,kbng 11 ajl told, ,interestingly.criticizes. the-idea ,of evaluating -.the: ,performance:;,ofi.- individual .:-schools ~olely."r-on:, the:t~standardized.,it&t scores-:of .I .students. These, We -;.cobxiision , complains, - identify effekl; riot &uses,of the educational . process and are-:.particularIy.inadequate for: measuring ., achievemehts-:ioS.:&ority:.. group .I ;... :!. ;;&:? ><;, :;...... t,.G .<.....$?.:., .. .:.>.9 .. - ... ::-, ...: : . -5. .;-.'.i...... ,. .$;. ,.,... ;.+$.:fa, -r. :..' .stbdents. . : -.,,4; .w: ,i;.:,; ,<:.. :. <;:, .;,. !2 i:.;j&!:-.-: . , , - .. .: ,: ...... ,;, ..."...... *:i:;-.?>.f;.,:* ..:. ;-. i-.:..-;.:?C:. ..f, 1,..:3 I!.?;: 1 ..... ,. ., .'1::-ONEACTIVTY.of thecoinmjskio'n descw;;. - I ing.',ipecial---noteis the'-mahagementassistan& and.seasoned advice b.eing contributed by few. ! major companies..h:San Francisco,: an,-.eff ort

guided. -t;.lr by ~odsio~errr ..,. ,:,.R,;. Gwin FolliS.:. :;..:. .;:;.:+ .: 1 ...... : - .... ,;.-, ':.: .. '-.??,~ . ,., ..- .. >, ..... *.,.;.-, 9,:;. .,"... -:,:,<:: . ;:;.>-: ,; .. . -. .,:Chairman..WilliamtM:.Ro'th announc&. that ,' thk .cobmission.'is.-staying:within.its ,o@hal.; intention of windhg'~:uupmosti,of:its substantive ;worlk.,jby.!,: the :.;:'endy:'of,jT ~une. . It f:js - .,to/ be : : con~atulatedalmost as much for.getting :its . work::done on time; as.for getting. it - done in such. '.thorouoh.... " well-informed,,,commorisense ?...!: .::.., :. -,,,, .;p$'f.,':';:.; i...'.(., ..: fashion, -.c.,,:; ... ,:.kg;i ::-i.ip .( ..,.-:..., ..-&.~:~x::L:i4L.... .sL...... -,L:+.-~,..~:~~-.~...... Youthful Advocates: University of California Students and Vanguard Foundat ion

Morris: You went on the Rosenberg board about the time when the youth leadership and alternative services appeared in great number. Again, were these kinds of things you were aware of from your general knowledge of the community, or were these things that Ruth would bring in and say: We should take a look at these.

Roth: I saw quite a bit of that on my own. I'd been aware, when I first got back, of a lot of the interest in new areas by younger people.

Morris: Well, '69 was also the year when you were hearing a lot about student innovation as a regent.

Roth: That's for sure.

Morris: That's the subject for a whole other interview, and my brief does not run there--

Rot h : Yes.

Morris: Other than to ask--did it provide any insights into the kinds of things that would make a--

Roth: Yes. I think it did. And there were also groups in Washington that I kept in touch with while I was there, which were in some of these areas, including some of the so-called 'radical' areas. So that I knew something of what was going on.

Morris: Were these innovative projects--some of the things like the free clinic that came out of the Berkeley experience in '69, Hospitality House, and other youth-led projects--were they, from your point of view, concerned with younger people in positions of control and authority, or was it more a matter that they felt that they could do the job better than more conventional kinds of hostels or medical things?

Roth: I think, as in all these cases, both. We still see these kinds of situations, and both those factors apply. I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut this short--

Morris: Yes, I know that your schedule is running late. I think we've covered everything, except for your daughter and Vanguard. Had Vanguard already gotten started by the time you were back here on the Rosenberg board? Rot h : I can't quite remember when it started. I think it was about that time. Have you talked to Obie Benz?

Morris: I plan to. , Roth: Good. He sort of is both the director and board member.

Morris: You mentioned that your daughter was involved in it.

Roth: She just contributed to it. She doesntt--

Morris: Do you and she have a chance to talk much about your views of the world and--

Roth : No. My wife always complains that I'm not very good about expressing my views of the world at home. Just as I'm not on tape, either.

Morris: I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable.

Roth: No, it doesn't. It's just--ask me to go back into my past, and I tend to forget what motivations were at a particular point in my life.

Morris: What you remember about why you did something quite often is illumi- nating to somebody who's thinking of doing the same kind of thing.

What kinds of things do you think that Vanguard and Glide, for instance, can do that Rosenberg cannot do?

Roth: Well, Rosenberg's problem, as most foundations of its size, is that as the requirement for giving increases, and the number of applications go up by leaps and bounds, it must restrict its area of giving. So Vanguard can concentrate on different areas. They're particularly interested in innovative projects having to do with social change. And they give relatively small grants, mostly to projects that have relatively small roots.

Rosenberg , more and more, is tending to give larger chunks on a continuing basis to programs that they feel are important, are really substantial programs.

Morris: Well, I won't keep you any longer. Thank you.

Interviewer-Editor : Gabrielle Morris Transcriber: Lee Steinback Final Typist: Judy Johnson The Bancrof t Library University of California/Berkeley Regional Oral History Office

Bay Area Foundation History Series Volume IV

Richard L. Foster

AVOIDING INSTITUTIONAL ENTROPY: A SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT 'S VIEW

An Interview Conducted by Gabrielle Morris

@ 1976 by The Regents of the University of California TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Richard L. Foster

INTERVIEW HISTORY

1. GRANT FUNDING IN A LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT A School Administrator's Career General Observations on Foundation and Government Grants Innovation in Education: Berkeley Experimental Schools Program Teacher Training

2. INTANGIBLES OF GRANTEE-GRANTOR RELATIONSHIPS Acquaintance and Opportunity Civil Rights and Federal Funding Formal and Informal Evaluation and Accountability

3. MAINTAIN'ING STAFF VITALITY The Stimulus of Experimental Cash Industry's Research and Development Model School District Mini-Grants

4. FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON FOUNDATION EXECUTIVES

5. MATCHING DOLLARS AND IDEAS Dynamics of Proposal Reading, Writing, and Funding: Federal Access to Individuals Berkeley School District's Development Service and Success

6. IN CONCLUSION Grant Funds as Risk Capital in Tight School Budgets Student Response to Experimental Schools in a Unified District

INDEX 318 INTERVIEW HISTORY

In seeking to document the range of experience of Bay Area agencies and instTtutions with the foundations making financial grants in this .region, this brief interview with educator Richard L. Foster provides a vivid insight into some of the interrelationships between local foundation grants, national ones, and the government granting programs in the complexities of public school finance.

Richard Foster's conviction is that grant money, as opposed to earmarked base support, is essential to encouraging vitality in institutional systems whose natural tendency is to remain as they are, static in relation to changing conditions. As superintendent of the Berkeley Unified School District during the early years of its racial integration program, Dr. Foster discussed this concept and its need for a continuous flow of new ideas as well as funds with board of education, staff, and community groups. It was at such a PTA meeting that the interviewer first heard him, and later asked Dr. Foster to record his thoughts for this study of foundation history in the Bay Area.

The single interview was recorded on 22 August 1974 in the comfortable living room of his home on Tunnel Road in Berkeley, where he was housebound with one foot in a cast. By this time, changes in the economy and difficulties in the desegregation effort had led to increasing controversy and Dr. Foster had resigned; but he continued to use his administrative skills and express his advocacy as a consultant and through national organizations.

Above average in height, stocky, and sporting full sideburns, he chatted freely and candidly about the informal network of acquaintance between experienced school, foundation, and government administrators; the pipeline of projects in process, in planning, and in review; and the interest of foundations in staying abreast of current trends. With a good educator's skill, he included illustrative anecdotes and sought information from the interviewer.

A rough-edited transcript of the interview, with headings, was sent to Dr. Foster. He made only minor revisions, to clarify an point or verify a spelling.

Interviewer-Editor

14 June 1976 Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley [Date of Interview: 22August 19741

1. GRANT FUNDING IN A LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

A School Administtator's.career

Morris: I'm familiar with your work as superintendent of schools in Berkeley, and then earlier in Sausalito and San Ramon, but I don't really know if your background is California.

Foster: No. I grew up in Minnesota, did my bachelor's degree at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, first year of graduate work at the University of Minnesota, and did my first teaching in South St. Paul in the sixth, seventh and eighth grades. I spent a year and a half there, prior to four years in the service in World War 11.

Then when I came out of the service, I first served as a long- term substitute in Compton, California, and went from there to Santa Monica High School to teach. I was a vice-principal and principal in a junior high school in Santa Monica, then taught in the junior college, went from there as assistant superintendent in charge of instruction in Santa Ana, came to Marin County, where I was assistant superintendent, and then county superintendent in Marin County, from there to the Jefferson Elementary School District in Daly City as superintendent, from there to San Ramon, and from San Ramon to Berkeley.

I never was superintendent in Sausalito. I did the desegregation for the Sausalito system as an outside consultant.

Morris: That's interesting.

Foster: I did my master's and doctorate at UCLA during the period of time when I was teaching in Santa Monica, and then completed it when I was superintendent of schools in Daly City.

Morris: So that you know the California system pretty well.

Foster: I came to California in '45, so 1've been here twenty-nine years. Morris: You've seen education in the period that we're interested in. The local foundations -- for the Bay Area, anyhow -- seem to have had a surge of activity and increase in funds in those postwar years. What I'm interested in, primarily, is the work you may have done with the help of the local foundations.

General Observations on Local and National Grants

Foster: In my memory, there are three major foundations from whom I've gotten grants in the local area, and one that is quasi-local that 1'11 talk about in just a minute. The San Francisco Foundation is the one that I've gotten most grants from; the Rosenberg Foundation and Zellerbach have been the other two.

Then, in addition, when I was in Daly City, we got one of four national grants, but it came out of the local area. Bell and Howell and Encyclopedia Britannica had a national contest, but actually the local work came from Encyclopedia Britannica in this area.

The other three are the ones that have been consistently helpful.

Morris: In the Bell and Howell and Encyclopedia Britannica one, what was the contest for?

Foster: They were attempting to set up a project in which they would saturate a school with all of the audio-visual equipment and materials to see whether this would make any difference in the learning process. It was called 'Project Discovery.' Mercer School in Shaker Heights, Ohio, was the first school to get such a grant; the Thomas Edison School in Daly City, when I was superintendent, was the second school to get that grant.

The reason I call it more local is that it was administered locally by Encyclopedia Britannica and Bell and Howell in the Bay Area, but they are not true granting agencies in the sense that San Francisco Foundation is.

Morris: Would it have been related to educational materials that they were then developing themselves?

Foster: Yes. We had access to everything Encyclopedia Brittanica produced. They also made available to us material they didn't produce. They were trying to see if we really saturated education, would it change the nature of learning. Morris : On the basis of these four school districts, what kind of findings were possible?

Foster: Guba at Ohio State did the research. I had left Daly City before the research was done, but in general this saturation made a difference, but not as statistical a difference as they had hoped for. I think it made very much difference in the relationship of the teachers and the kinds of experiences they provided in the classroom; that's hard to measure when you're looking at achievement of kids. There are some things we haven't learned how to measure.

That's why we've got oral history. [Laughter]

Morris: Yes; in going back over things in the past, sometimes something comes up in discussion that has been forgotten.

Foster: hat's right.

Morris: Was the Bell and Howell effort after you were seeking grants from the local foundations?

Foster : I think I had had a grant from Rosenberg before I had gotten the Bell and Howell grant. There was just a minor one on some research that I was doing.

I also had gotten a grant before then -- I'm just trying to think back -- I got a grant from the California Heart Association before that, and I got a grant from the American Heart Association before I got the one from Bell and Howell. This was in connection with some work that I was doing and am still doing in health education and teacher training. But the major grants came later.

Morris: Were they for your own work, or for projects that the school district itself was involved in?

Foster: That's awfully hard to separate sometimes. The school district was doing it and I was doing it, so it was a col1aboratio.n between people in the district, and we were working with kids in the district, with something that I had helped design. So it was both.

Morris : This is before you came to Berkeley?

Foster: Yes. Then, of course, we had had grants from the U.S. Office of Education before that time.

Morris: From the school district's point of view, and yours as an official, do the projects that are suitable for local funding come before the national ones? Foster: Prior to '65, before we had the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and prior to the categorical aid that was in that act, there wasn't a lot of funding for public schools available from the U.S. Office. Once the '65 act was passed, it was neither an 'eitherlor;' it was both. Federal funding was available, but also foundation funding became more available.

I don't think it's a before or after question, but which way would you go, given whatever the idea you have -- do you see if you can get grants out of federal funding, or do you go to national foundations, or is this something you want to try locally?

Morris: What are the criteria?

Foster: Generally, local funding is smaller in dollars, more limited in time (generally it's a one-year funding and there's relatively low hope that the funding will continue), generally it's higher risk capital; they aren't as concerned as to whether all the research can be done within that year, but is it something you can pilot and get started and maybe use that funding to go for national funding or for HEW funding.

So it's smaller amounts, higher risk capital, and is something terribly needed by school districts, or any other public agencies, that really don't have this capital in their budget.

Morris: Have you felt that education had a better chance of being funded by a local foundation than, maybe, health or welfare?

Foster: I really don't want to put them in competition, because it isn't 'better than.' Each time there was a project, I tried to look at it and think, from my experience: Where can this idea be marketed? Who from previous experience has been interested in this sort of thing, what kind of dollars is it calling for., how many years will it take in order to make something go with the idea, is there a possibility of collaborative funding -- are there some parts of it that --

For instance, HEW funding has very strict restrictions in regard to expenditures, and you may need some free dollars in order to be able to market the idea that you're trying to do. That freedom may come from a small grant from Rosenberg or San Francisco Foundation or some other localmonies. So, it could be eitherlor, and it can be collaborative. Innovation in Education: Berkeley Experimental Schools Program

Foster: Alternative schools are a good example of multiple use of funds. They have some San Francisco Foundationmoney, some Rosenberg money, some Ford money, and HEW money.

Morris: That was the program that I was thinking of. Which came first?

Foster: Rosenberg came first. When I came here, Jay Manley already had, for Community High, a grant from Rosenberg. That's kind of interesting that you brought that one up, because the second grant came from Ford, the third grant came from the San Francisco Foundation, and the fourth grant came from HEW, which says that it isn't 'eitherlor.'

Morris: Can you remember how.one led to another?

Foster: Yes. The first one was here. I know how that one came about, too. Jay Manley was working at U.C. in the intern program. Ruth Chance, who was directing the Rosenberg, was tied closely with what they were doing in the intern program. When that group of interns came out and wanted to do the Community High thing because they were getting hurt -- from their point of view -- in the large high school, Ruth was very interested that they be given a chance, and she put the first money in.

The second piece of money came as a result of a presentation that I made in San Francisco at a national conference on the need for alternatives .

Morris: This is about 1968-69, isn't it?

Foster: About '69, I think. My concept was: with the wide range of life styles that were developing in urban culture, no single monolithic high school was going to be able to meet the needs, that we needed a wide range of alternatives.

Mario Fantini from Ford, whom I had known for a long time, was in the audience. He came up after and said: How long have you been thinking about it? I said: I don't really know; I've just been dreaming on the question.

He came to Berkeley the next day and we talked for six straight hours. At the end of the day, he said: If you're really interested in trying it out, Ford will give you a quarter of a million dollars to try. It was that fast -- no proposal, no nothing. The proposal came later. I asked him why: Why are you so fast on a quarter of a million dollars? He said: We've been putting large amounts of money into in- service and trying to improve the system by changing it internally, and we're losing. The idea sounds tome as if it's going to succeed; we want a part of the action on it. Morris: So that before you began your actual detail planning, you knew you had a quarter of a million dollars.

Foster: Yes. When I announced that first one, both to the board and to the staff, I told them we had the money; it was a question of how we decided to spend it. A proposal was written afterwards.'

Mario wrote in his book Public Schools of Choice a chapter on Berkeley and the alternative schools in Berkeley, and he says just about the same thing we're talking about now.

Buddy Jackson was working as director of Black House when it started under the Ford proposal. I think it was Buddy who first went to John May and the San Francisco Foundation and discussed with John the need for additional funds for Black House and Casa de la Raza. I think John also put something else in that grant; I think he may have put some money into Tom Parker's continuation school program.

Anyhow, that's how the next money came; I had a meeting with John May afterwards. They were interested in putting in a small amount; I can't remember now what the amount was, but it seems to be about twelve thousand dollars.

Morris: In each -- ?

Foster: No. Total, for a year, kind of additional funding. Then HEW announced three years ago -- four, maybe, now -- that there was a new division starting in HEW called the Experimental Schools. A meeting was held at UCLA with about a dozen people invited by Bob Binswanger, who was coming out of our group, in which he was talking about the fact that this was an organization that was going to last for five to seven years, that they were going to fund some school district to try out something new in education; they didn't know what it was.

At the meeting, we asked the question: Could it be something we already had started? The answer was yes. Every school district got a notice that they could put in a prospectus. We put in a ten-page prospectus on the possibility of alternative schools. Eight school districts were given planning grants for three months of the thousand dollars, and three school districts were selected -- Berkeley, Pierce County, Washington, and Minneapolis. That's how the five million dollars (I think that's the right figure -- close to it, anyway) for experimental schools came from HEW.

That's really the story of how Jay Manley first started on Community High, all the way through the present time. Teacher Training

Morris: There are a number of very interesting points on that. One, to go back to the beginning, is Ruth chance's involvement in the U.C. intern program. Was she a part of the faculty?

Foster: No. The guy who was directing the intern program, who then went from there to Santa Cruz -- I can't think of his name but we can find it someplace -- and some of the staff had done work with Ruth Chance on other grants and so on, and she just saw it as a new thrust for changing teacher education.

Morris: This is the program whereby people spend a small amount of time in the University classroom, and then most of the time practice teach.hg?

Foster: Most of the time in the public schools, yes. Most of the time in schools as true interns. It was an alternative to formal teacher education; it was separate from the University Department of Education and seen as another way of training people. It wasn't a direct connection; it was really her interest. She is a most remarkable woman.

Morris: Yes, she is. This is what I hear from everybody who's worked with her -- she's been on the spot and known what's going on in various places.

Fos,ter: And she's got a smell for good ideas.

Morris: So that in a sense, she and Jay Manley worked the idea out together to the point where -- ?

Foster: -- the first grant came. You really ought to talk with Jay sometime as to how that really came about, because that was here when I came.

Morris: That would be very interesting. For several years in there, there seem to have been a number of grants and a lot of foundation money put into intern programs -- and then that whole approach seems to have by and large disappeared. Is that true?

Foster: Yes, but that's not surprising. The system works hard to kill off anything that threatens it; every system works hard to kill off anything that threatens it. The intern was a threat to the regular teacher, training program at Cal -- is, was, will be.

Morris: Is there any significance to the fact that Jay.Manley was in the intern program and then went on into an alternative kind of educational experience? Foster: Probably. It probably says something about Jay before he walked into the program. He ought to answer for himself, but I predict he'll say something like: the regular program turned him off; he was looking for another way to go for teacher training rather than the standard procedure of the University. The fact that he was then interested in an alternative after he got into the public schools says that he believed that there were many people who felt the same way about traditional education.

Morris: So that there is that kind of continuity, yes.

Foster: I don't think he got that idea in the intern program; I think he had it before he walked into the intern program. But that confirmed his point of view.

Morris: I'm always interested in the way people come back and forth into each other's lives. You said that you had known Mario Fantini before, and therefore he really heard you when you were talking about this.

Foster: Before I came to Berkeley, I had served on a national task force for teaching disadvantaged. Ten of us were selected by HEW and given a grant of a million dollars a year for two years to take a look at teacher education in Europe. We wrote a book called Teachers for the Real World published by AACTE (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington).

Somewhere in that process, if not before -- and I may have met him before that -- Mario appeared before the committee and talked about what was going on in Ford, and I think he served as a consultant at one time. That goes back to, I guess, '65 or '66. I knew him from those days, but I had never asked him for a grant. Don't ask me why. It's one of those things that -- 2. INTANGIBLES OF GRANTEE-GRANTOR RELATIONSHIPS

Acquaintance and Opportunity

Foster: Sometimes when I feel close to somebody personally, that first grant has to come through chance rather than direct negotiations.

Morris: You feel a personal shyness about asking a friend for money?

Foster: Yes. Now, after the first one, you establish -- then, that goes. But in the first one, I always worry about use of people rather than the grant coming from good relationships of an intellectual sort.

I really had never pushed him for it, even though on two or three occasions he had asked me in a kind of indirect way when I was coming to see him. I was kind of letting it stay; I just felt better about it.

Morris: Because of the personal relationships?

Foster: Yes. I don't really mean that personal relationships get in the way after you do the first grant; in fact, they're very helpful because you both understand each other. But so many times, the grant officer, I think, could get the feeling that you're interested in him just for a grant, rather than in him as a person. I think that can get confusing unless that's very clear.

Morris: I would imagine that could be a sticky area. Ittouches on an issue that is much debated in the foundation world. I could put it as a question -- have you had any contact at all with people who are foundation trustees, or the boards of directors?

Foster: Not in the sense of appearing before them and therefore learning who they are, but some of them I knew because 1'd served on other boards with them.

There are some board members who are board entrepeneurs; they serve on many boards and you run into them in many places. In that sense I have. I served for four or five years on the KQED board; there are Foster: some members on the KQED board who I think have historic board relationships. If you look at the list in Focus, you'll know what I'm saying. There are a lot of people who like board activity; I don't happen to be one of those. I am on some, but I get off as quickly as I can.

Morris: Board entrepeneur is a marvelous phrase; I shall remember that. Do you suppose it helps or hinders their contributions?

Foster: I don't know. I just think it is, and I don't think you ought to draw any generic conclusion from it; I just think it's something interesting to watch.

Civil Rinhts and Federal Funding

Morris: Could you tell me Buddy Jackson's formal name? There are several Jacksons around in the Berkeley schools.

Foster: He's dead. Buddy was killed in an automobile accident -- how many years ago?

Mrs. Foster: July 4th, two years ago.

Foster: Longer than that. It was '70 or '71. Buddy was the director of Black House and was killed in Richmond in a single-caraccident. Don't ask me what his other name is because I don't know.

Morris: I had heard him spoken of as Buddy Jackson always and always in connection with Black House. Then there are a couple of other Jacksons in the school district in administrative spots.

Foster: Yes -- Clarence and so on, but they're no relation.

Morris: What a pity he's now dead. How did Black House become an issue in the matter of grant funding?

Foster: Really not in the issue of grant funding. It became a civil rights issue.

Morris: Wasn't the question that the federal money might be withdrawn because Black House was felt, by that time, to be discrimination in reverse?

Foster: When we look back on that struggle, we were facing an issue with Civil Rights that we were ready to take to an administrative hearing. We thought the Civil Rights Division of HEW was wrong in their decision, but the Labor Department has an Executive Order 11246 which says that for Foster: any contract over a million dollars, there must be desegregation in faculty if federal funds are to be allocated.

It was really Executive Order 11246, imposed on us at a meeting in Washington, which we found no way to fight, and this was the reason we gave in on Black House. If that order had not come into the picture, we would have taken HEW Civil Rights to an administrative hearing, to test whether they were correct in their interpretation.

Their hypothesis always was -- Stan Pottinger, who was the director at that time, said to me: Dick, I think what you're doing is right. I predict that every major school district that desegregates, will have to do it. But I can't find anything in the law to let you do it.

Their question to us always was: If we let you do it (Black House), how are we going to prevent the superintendent in Mobile, Alabama, who wants to segregate? Our answer always was: Once they've desegregated and they've shown the same kinds of caring for the issue that we have, and they want to do it to help black kids, we recommend

you do it. ' But that was shard issue to get across, and that 's how we closed Black House.

Morris: At that point, did the alternative schools program have both federal funding and Ford funding?

Foster: We had just finished up with Ford funding, so at that moment, which was a year ago last June [1973], we only had HEW money. By the way, Ex- perimental Schools wanted us to keep Black House and Casa open; their point of view was that it was an experiment.

Morris: This is the HEW Experimental Schools?

Foster: HEW Experimental Schools. They were in a struggle with their Civil Rights Division, also. Their feeling was that it was an experiment, and the experiment ought to have a right to be completed to see what it did do for black kids and ch.icano kids. So they were actually on our side against Civil Rights, but Civil Rights and Labor prevailed.

Morris: Was this a political --

Foster: It depends on how you define political. It was not a Republican or Democratic issue; it was not the federal government versus the local school district. It was a fundamental conceptual belief on which people differed. It was political if you define political behavior as the way groups make decisions.

Morris: I was thinking of political as opposed to educational. Foster: You can't separate them, unfortunately, because school districts are also political entities. It was not politics in the way politics is used negatively; it was a fundamental philosophical difference as to what desegregation means and what has to be done when you're dealing with a pluralistic society in order to make people succeed.

The Civil Rights Division had been spending its life on the desegregation of the South, and from our point of view, had a southern mentality. When they looked at a problem, their main thinking was: What will be the effect on Jackson, Mississippi, if we let them do this? We were trying to get them to a different philosophical position, and we didn't do it.

Pottinger turned them over to me one day. I had Buddy Jackson with me and I think somebody from Casa. He turned over the entire staff of Civil Rights for a morning for us to try to educate them.

Formal and Informal Evaluation and Accounrabilitv

Morris: In addition to this big Ford grant, you also picked up a grant from the San Francisco Foundation; they were also involved in Black House at its earliest stages. Did Buddy Jackson go to the San Francisco Foundation, or was the San Francisco Foundation looking for minority projects to fund?

Foster: Buddy went to see John May in the San Francisco Foundation, working with the hypothesis that there was not enough money to be gotten from the district (or the amount they were getting from Ford at the time) to be able to carry off the experiment. He, with the support of the district, convinced John that it was something that the Foundation ought to be concerned about in terms of the education of blacks and Chicanos. That was coming at a time when the San Francisco Foundation was expanding its perspective into a multi-ethnic culture. So, there was mutually good timing on it.

John May, from my point of view, is a magnificent foundation manager (he just retired; he left the San Francisco Foundation). I thought John was just an unusual human being.

Morris: What particular qualities impressed you?

Foster: Bright, insightful, tough, warm, predicting what might happen and the ability to do it --

Morris: -- in relation to a specific idea -- Foster: -- to an idea, he could spin from there. Just very nice to be with.

Morris: Did he ever find the time to come over and make an on-site visit?

Foster: He came over and did an on-site visit of Casa, Black House, and the continuatton school. He spent a whole day over here.

Morris: Touring all three. Did you go along? What kind of comments did he have?

Foster: Yes. I went along,I thinkyon two of the three, and my memory says that he was pleased that they had done it. He had some questions, especially fm regard to what was going to come out of Black House. But generally, I think he was enthusiastic about the adventure of their money.

Morris: Adventure -- that's a nice word to use.

Foster: I think he saw it that way.

Morris: When there is a grant received, one of the requirements is that you turn in a final report. Do those final reports ever inform that foundation .of later activities in a field?

Foster: Let's see if I understand the question. The final report is usually one that summarizes what took place, tries to answer the question: We said we'd do this. This is what we did. Both San Francisco and Rosenberg never required long research reports in that sense. They really wanted to answer the question: Did you spend the money as you said you would? Will you give us an accounting for it, and where are you going from there? That was turned in to the San Francisco Found- ation.

Morris: I'm thinking not only of the actual formal accounting of money received, but in terms of the smaller, local foundations with their interest in innovative ideas (for instance, Black House because they thought it was an adventure worth undertaking), how do they get a sense of what the grantee feels has been accomplished in the project?

Foster: I only know three ways. Let's take either Ruth Chance or John. They would call periodically and talk to me about what's happened, what's going on, and how did I feel. Or I might call them.

Secondly, each of them came and visited; so they had that particular observation. Then there was the formal statement made at the end. I suppose they got some other information, because you can't live in the Bay Area without getting other kinds of data from either a parent or somebody you run into at a party, or something you pick up from a youngster, and so on. But that's something that they ought to feed back. Those were the ways that I knew that they got information. Foster: Both Ruth and John were amazing in what they knew. They had been at it a long time, and I think that also helped. They knew the environment in which they were living.

Morris: Yes -- all the previous people involved and the earlier history. Is that kind of informal keeping touch with what is going on -- is that possible when you're dealing with somebody like Ford or HEW?

Foster: Oh, yes. That goes on all the time. With a good grant officer -- both with Mario, when he was there, and with Josh Smith at Ford -- there was always telephone communication going on. They might get an article out of a local newspaper that either was complimentary or criticizing, and might call and say: What's really happening?

In a city like Berkeley, you'll always have somebody who writes a letter, one way or another, in regard to it, and that raises those kinds of questions. Then you'd periodically meet at some meeting, and there'd be a sit-down discussion of what's happening, how it's going, and that sort of stuff. 3. MAINTAINING STAFF VITALITY

'The 'S tiniulus 'of Experimental Cash

Foster: Then,of course, you never get funding for a grant of a national character on which you're not planning the next year's grant.

Morris: Even when it's a three-year grant?

Foster: I don't care how long it is. Let me put it this way: if you think of school district budgets basically as fixed dollars with relatively low freedom in it -- maybe eightg-five percent of it is committed to people, fifteen percent of it has to do with supplies, running buses-and all the rest of it -- there's relatively little free money. (I'm not using 'free' in the sense of gift, but I'm saying experimental money; there's relatively almost none.)

Any change you try to do, to create some of that so-called 'free' money, you do it by affecting people already in the system, each of whom has a constituency. There isn't a human being in the Berkeley system who doesn't have a whole constituency that will be aroused by whatever change occurs in that person's life.

So, the only way you have working capital that can be used for new ideas is external money. That can either be grant money or categorical money. It's one of the reasons that I've consistently opposed revenue- sharing for schools rather than categorical aid, because revenue money would just get eaten up.

Morris: Because that will come in as part of the fixed batch of money?

Foster: That's right. hat's just going to go for expenditures for more people or higher salaries but not for change. So, it's a hard concept. Free money or experimental money has to have a constant cash flow.

If you begin to have four or five million dollars a year in experimental money, and you know that certain experimental money is going to run out every year, some of which is non-renewable, then you've got to be thinking what other new capital is available so that you can keep the Foster: cash flow of experimental money going; whether it's the same money or not doesn't make any difference. It can be a different project; you move some people back into the standard operation while you begin to operate on the new environment.

Experimental cash flow is a very hard concept for a board of education.

Morris: It runs into the' question of when is an experiment an experiment and when is it a means of keeping the' school district af loat?

Foster: It ought not to be thought of that way. You've got to work on the as- sumption that the system wants to go back to normal; every system wants to return to normal.

Industry's Research and Development Model

Foster: In a sense, every system wants to become entropic rather than changing. It wants to go back because everybody?,ss comfortable that way. you've got to be thinking of experimental money to prevent the system from dying.

Morris: Atrophying.

Foster: That's right-- it wants to atrophy. The amoeba wants to go back to it's original position even though it reaches--

Morris: -- of no-motion.

Foster: -- of no motion. And the only way you can think about it, then, is that you've got to create motion. That motion has to come out of experimental money, and therefore the experiment is never over -- unless you're willing to declare the system dead.

The one problem about a system dying, is it doesn't know when it's dead. The human being declares death, but a system doesn't; it goes on and on as though it's doing something. It will give the semblance of motion, as though it's in motion; but it's really not in motion. So from my point of view, the experiment is never over; it's always: Which one?' How do you keep the thing alive?

Take the problems of San Francisco, a large urban district. It's dead in the water, and unless someone can put some free capital into it somehow to make movement, it's going to stay, it wants to stay, dead in the water. Morris: Is this concept difficult for many people to understand? -Because classic- ally, when you have an experiment and you test it,;if it succeeds:you' then put it into production, in an industrial context. From a simplistic point of view, an experiment in the educational system quite often looks as if -- when the outside money for an experiment runs out, the experiment stops, rather than becoming a part of the standard curriculum. Is this one of the things that people have trouble with?

Foster: I think so. If we saw the experiment as human change, and if you really measured the experiment not alone in the sense of, "Did some youngsters achieve higher?'' but, "What happened to the people who were doing it, and how were they changed and how did they begin to behave differently?' If you saw a big enterprise of two thousand people as always having to have that kind of influence to keep it in movement (that's what the district has -- two thousand staff) then people would see it differently. That's a very hard concept.

'&Whenwill we quit experimenting" is the usual word that comes up. And I'd like to say -- but it's so hard to say, when you're superintendent -- "When you're all dead ,"because people would think you're being facetious or smart-aleck, and I'm really not; I'm very serious.

The one reason the intern program is needed at Cal is that the Education Department wants to die.

Morris: Didn't you say that the intern program is not part of the Education De- partment?

Foster: But it was out there as an external stimulus. It was at Cal. A student had a choice between going in the Education Department and the intern department, so the intern department serves as a barb. If more start demanding the intern department than the regular department, the regular department loses slots, and it begins to say: What do we have to do in order to keep up with those people; or:',How do we kill them?' So their methodology (they won't admit it) is they kill them.

Morris: The intern program?

Foster: Yes. So the experiments should never stop, I hope. In Berkeley, for instance, we've had about five million dollars in experimental money of some kind. I tried to get the concept across to the board -- and I think some of them have it; some can't get it -- of a concept of cash flow. What they really ought to be looking at is how do they bring in five million dollars a year, out of foundations or out of JBW, that can be used for a myriad of research, new techniques, new ways of doing it, and not get hung up on whether one thing is ending, and what are they going to do with that, but get hung up on the bigger idea of how do they keep the kind of motion that's going. Foster: Now, some people can grab that -- and when they do, it's very exciting. It's a very exciting concept to me. Industry understands it very well.

Morris: I was going to ask you if this idea has a counterpart in business.

Foster: R and D is a common concept; no major industry would operate without an R and D function; industry talks about putting ten percent of its budget into R and D.

Morris: That's about what -- five million in a budget for a medium-sized school district?

Foster: In our case, it would be three and a half million, if you took ten percent for R and D. Industry couldn't operate without it; it would just go under. I just saw a brochure from a major company, TRW, and their quarterly report was talking about the kind of money they were putting into R and D, because they're doing all the new things in terms of next-generation computers or the use of new systems. You've got to do it.

What's going to happen to school districts in the next few years? SB 90 has got a two percent inflation factor; that's the method of state financing for schools. With the cost of living, you 're jumping nine or ten percent a year. If there was any cushion of money in a school district budget, within a year or two it's going to be completely gone; you can't have ten percent inflation in expenditures and two percent increase in income without reaching a crisis.

1Tape turned over. ]

I think we're going to have more strikes in California than we've ever experienced. %ether that's going to lead to additional state funding as a necessity or not, I don't know. But one thing it's certainly going to lead to is no risk capital for school districts. Therefore, unless there is foundation or categorical J3EW help, I predict districts will come to a standstill educationally.

Morris: I wonder if you would hazard a guess as to whether this entropic aspect of institutions applies also to legislatures, state and national, and may be a factor in why legislatures periodically get cross at foundations, particularly those in the risk capital end of granting.

Foster: I don't know why legislators get cross at foundations. I suppose, when you talk about large foundations, they begin to worry about power and who owns the power. But I also know many members of legislatures who work on foundations to get grants for various reasons.

Morris: For legislatures? Foster: Yes, and for state departments and so on. I really don't know that one.

School 'District Mini-Grants

Morris: While you were superintendent in Berkeley, didn't you establish a mini- grant program?

Foster: Yes. I was working on almost the same hypothesis internally, and that was a double one. One, many teachers said: "I really would try something different if I just had a small amount of money. ' Therefore, I wanted to make that small amount of money available. Secondly, in any given school, the majority in that school does not want that school to change, and it works against the individuals in that school who are working for change.

One of the ways that you could give credentials and maybe esteem to people who are trying to do something is to fund them. So I had both goals in mind -- one, that they would actually have what they needed, and second of all, it would give them psychological protection that money tends to give to an idea.

Morris: And prestige.

Foster: Yes. One of the things I recommended to Ruth Chance -- I said; Ruth, there's no reward in our culture for risking; whether you're a superintendent or a principal or a teacher, the culture rewards conformity. What I'd like to suggest you do is -- taking just the Bay Area into consideration -- once a month, you announce a grant to somebody in the Bay Area who,:yau feel, has taken the most productive risk in an idea, and reward them with a two-week vacation paid for by Rosenberg to Hawaii.

Morris: What did she say to that suggestion?

Foster: She liked it, but she didn't know how she .could market it, with her old boards and so on -- it was a tough idea. But it was based on the same thing; if you could say, "Mary Jones was selected by Rosenberg Foundation as the outstanding productive educator who was trying something new and has been rewarded with a two-week vacation in Hawaii, ' that 's a lot of prestige and reward and so on. Over a five-year period, you'd have sixty people you could say have come through that sort of thing. I still think it's a good idea.

Morris: Have you seen the 1973 Rosenberg Annual Report?

Foster: I have not. Morris: I wonder if this is a variation on your suggestion. The body of the report is an essay by.Jim Baumhl on the Berkeley Streetwork Project, which was funded by Rosenberg.

Foster: Ideas once advanced are in the marketplace, and whoever picked -- once they're picked up, I'm just delighted that somebody saw it.

I have no way of knowing whether it developed from my suggestion or not, but if it did -- if Ruth used it in some way, God bless her; that's fine with me. It's very well done.

Morris: Yes, it's handsomely put together, it makes a remarkably different kind of an annual report. 4. FURTJBR OBSERVATIONS ON FOUNDATION EXECUTIVES

Foster: By the way, we haven't said anything about Zellerbach [Family Fund].

Morris: I was going to ask you that.

Foster: We've had some success recently with Zellerbach. Ed Nathan, their executive, went with Zellerbach full time a couple of years ago; Ed came out of Cal, where he'd done his graduate work. I think that changed a little bit the receptivity of Zellerbach to schools and what was going on. He's given a couple of grants, especially to Tom Parker and a group at the continuation school; the library project, I think, was the first one, and the second one having to do with the training of people in the computer line.

I like Ed very much; I knew him before. I think he'll be a very careful, sound administrator of Zellerbach.

Morris: He brings a different kind of skills and background to foundation staff than John May and Ruth Chance.

Foster: Very different; very different. Now it happens that I consider all three of those people friends in a personal sense -- John the most because we've been together socially and so on. 'Also Ed and Ij but they're different personalities.

Morris: Do you think this is a reflection of the times, or is this just chance?

Foster: Just chance. Ed Nathan grew up with the Zellerbachs. So when they were looking for somebody, it was kind of an 'in" family development that took place; they trusted Ed and so on. Who took John May's place?

Morris: Martin Paley.

Foster: That's very different. Martin -- it's my memory -- came out of the health services.

Morris: Yes, with professional administrative experience in the social planning council, I believe. Foster: That's right; that was my memory of when' I knew Martin. So I think it's . people rather' than traditional backgrounds, rather' than saying: This3 is the' background needed for a foundation. "

Morris: It is interesting that yoh cannot go to any university in the country and get a graduate degree in foundation administration.

Foster: You can get a degree in public administration, or you can get it in business administration or education administration, but none of them has foundation administration. Of course, there aren't enough foundation jobs, are there?

Morris: There seems to be a noticeable movement in this direction, partly in response (I would assume) to state and federal regulations, which have increased the amount of paper work and the' things you have to consider.

Foster: Has Ruth left Rosenberg?

Morris: Ruth has also retired from Rosenberg.

Foster: Have they appointed a replacement?

Morris: Yes, a young man named Kirke Wilson.

Foster: Where is he from?

Morris: He's had experience in the Valley, and I believe he's worked on health projects. I think he has more of a general academic ba, . but he's been around California a long time. He's a young man -- I'd say he's in his early thirties.

Foster: Martin's what -- forty-ish?

Morris: Maybe. The early forties, I would say.

Foster: I knew him from the health field because I had a continuing project in health education on the National Clearing House for Smoking and Health. I still have that at the moment.

Morris: Is this the work that was funded by the Heart Association?

Foster: That was the beginning of it. The first grant I got was from the American Heart Association and the second from the California organization. 5. MATCHING DOLLARS AND IDEAS

Dynamics of Proposal Reading, Writing, and Funding: Federal

Foster: Now, I've had nine years of funding from the National Clearing House for Smoking and Health.

Morris: That's a gFoup set up to get funds and ideas together?

Foster: No. That's an HEW piece out of the Center for Disease Control, but they also have granting mechanisms within it.

Morris: In that case, you're in an interesting spot to be able to talk about whether or not it's more complicated to find funding and define a project: in the health field than it is --

Foster: No. It's no more difficult in the health field than from public education in its normal sense. You do have a little bit of difficulty in the fact that so much of the health fundingt,is dispersed. In other words, it might be over in NIMH, it might be in the Center for Disease Control, it might be in the new Heart Institute, it might be in the new Lung Insti- tute -- you have a number of different places to which you might go. But the operation is no more difficult; it's the same.

Morris: Going back to your mini-grant program, what kind of criteria did you use to determine which proposals --?

Foster: It wasn't an "I". I set up a board of directors. I didn't call them that, but we had teachers and administrators who sat as a board of direc tors and reviewed projects.

Morris: How were they selected?

Foster: I don't remember; I'd have to go back. I think I asked the teacher organizations to recommend some people and the administrators to recommend; it seems to me we had five or six people that reviewed the projects and made the awards, just like an internal foundation would do.

Morris: The parallel is what interested me. What kind of criteria did your group use? Foster: How creative is the idea? Does it have any transferability in terms of whether it works or not? Is there anything the person has done in the past that gives us any evidence that the project will be carried out? Is it something we're deeply concerned about, that if it happened it would make a difference in where we're going to go? Those were the main things -- I have a hunch very similar to my experience when I've been on reading teams for HEW.

Morris: At what point did your experience put you on the list so that you were asked to then review other people's grant applications?

Foster: I guess I've been on reading teams for HEW a half a dozen gimes, sometimes on ones in which I've gone back to Washington to sit for a week and read proposals, and sometimes in which proposals are sent to me for my review.

Locally, John more than Ruth, but both would occasionally call me and say: ''What do you know about this organization that's operating in the East Bay? What's their track record? What do you think about this idea?" I'd respond, or I'd find out for them what was going on.

It becomes a way of life, in a sense. You're reading proposals, and at the same time you're writing other proposals. When you read proposals, you get better ideas of what you want to do, and what are great ideas. You're thrown in with other people who are creating, in a sense. It becomes a piece of your world, and you don't know whereone antenna leaves off and anothe~one piclks up.

Also, there was a time -- and that's kind of over with now -- when in May, for instance, you might be in Washington, at the end of the fiscal year. Suddenly, one of the division heads would say to you: 'Hey -- I've got some money in your field that came back and needs to be allocated between noirand July 31st. What is it you've been trying to do that you haven't been able to do, and would you like to talk about it? I've had occasions in which I've gotten a grant by being there; you sit down and you write something up, and so on.

You have to have, though, a board that will accept that as a way of life, and understand it. Suddenly you come home with a grant that you've never talked about -- or maybe talked about but never decided to write. Those are over for now, because there isn't that kind of granting mechanism any more.

Access to Individuals

Foster: It's a network. Morris : I've heard that word be£ ore, ' exactly that one. It .sounds as if it is a symbiotic kind of thing; you're feeding ideas back and forth and developing each' other 's expertise.

Foster: I think it's magnificent. I wish more people would have access.

Morris: You took the question out of my mouth. How does that work?

Foster: So that it doesn't become a closed corporation, because I don't think it ought to be a closed corporation. I think how that ought to be in the teaching field, there ought to be people at the university, who are teaching, who understand this mechanism and teach young people how to do it.

Secondly, there ought to be field work in which people go along with people who are doing it and begin to make the connection in order that the world goes on this way. I always tried to take my Rockefeller intern with me (because he was hoping to be a future assistant superintendent or superintendent), so that he would know his way around.

Mlbrris : And he himself would meet people who would then remember him later on.

Foster: It's also an access for him. When his time comes, he can say: Hey, I did meet you; I came here the last time with so-and-so. This is what we talked about. Can I have an appointment with you?' So you open the doors wider, because it ought not to be a closed corporation.

Morris: People unanimously say ideas are rare and to be cherished and nourished. Then how do you get at the sources of ideas?

Foster: I prefer to be with people who have ideas; I'm excited about that possibility. I!m also not bothered a bit if somebody says: ! I stole one of your ideas." That was what I put it out for. I'm sometimes bothered if it's corrupted in the sense that pieces are used; but that's the risk I take, too.

I think one of the purposes of having ideas, especially in the world we're talking about, is to share them with younger people in order that they don't have to learn them by chance but actually are trained to know that there are ways to make the kinds of moves, of how they might want to go, in terms of new ideas and how to market those ideas. This ought to be a skill that is taught.

Morris: How did your Rockefeller intern respond to coming into contact with this world of idea development?

Foster: Very excited about it. I had one over here the other night who had been with me a couple of years ago, and he just said: That was a whole new Foster: world for me; I didn't know any of the things that were opening up for us. We had never had the opportunity; the superintendent was looked upon as Great White Father sitting up someplace.'.

He is not! And I think I understand the guy on the other side who's doing the foundation or HEW -- he's responsible for a piece of dollars to function. He wants to market those dollars in a place where the idea will have a chance to be carried out; he wants it done with people who are likely to be responsible: and creative in regard to it -- both because he cares, and also-because he himself has to report to somebody. "What happened to our money?" in regard to it.

So I think I understand -- or I think I try to understand it -- from his point of view, and try in that sense to function in a way that he will understand as long as he's reasonable and logical in terms of what he's trying to do.

Once you see it from John May's point of view, of what he's going to have to report to the San Francisco Foundation, I think the relationship becomes much easier.

Morris: He puts it rather nicely. He says, "The grantees are our reason for being." The money doesn't mean anything until it has been used by somebody with an idea.

Foster: I just think he's a remarkable guy. I worked with his wife when she was in charge -- before he married her -- of the Florence Crittendon Home in San Francisco. She's just great.

Berkeley School District 's Development Service and Success

Morris: One other question I had r- putting on your superintendent hat rather than your consultant hat.

Foster: I don't really want to. [Laughter.] Go ahead; I'm teasing.

Morris: Consulting is a kind of a reward for all the years of hard work, I would think.

Was the school district set up so that all proposals for grants, from whatever source, cleared through one place?

Foster: They were supposed to; they were supposed to go through Jay Ball, and at the ninety-f ive percent lebel, they did. Just occasionally, a unique individual forgot and went directly to a foundation or talked with some- Foster: body. My general attitude was: 'Let's teal the person we have the service of the Project Off5oe. But if they've made a good connection and they have something important they want to do, let's see if we can help them.'' But most of the people work through Jay Ball.

Morris : Is it ever a matter that:"Welve got twenty million dollars worth of proposals, each one of which somebody is passionately interested in, but we can't possibly get them all funded. Should we try to sort them out into priorities and concentrate on the ones with the greater likelihood of getting funded?'

Foster : I understand the concept; it wasn't a concept we worked on. I worked on the other approach with Jay, whom I like very much -- if it's a good idea, where's the place we ought to try to market it? Let's not us decide whether it's in competition with another idea, but let the foundation make that kind of decision. So, you've got a good proposal -- if you've got too many into Ford at the present time and you don't think they'll go for anything else, where else should we go with it? Who else haven't we tried? What's Carnegie doing at the moment? What's happening at Rockefeller at the moment? Is there a place in HEW? I don't think we ought to be the one that places our internal proposals against each other; our job is to see if we can get them funded.

Morris : Get all of them funded.

Foster: Yes.

Morris : What about the foundation people coming in and saying -- ?

Foster : They never did.

Morris: "We'd like to know what all you're interested in so that we can try and see what we should be interested in."

Foster : They never did it that way, and I never had one of them call me back saying : "You're giving us more than we can handle. There'd be times on the agenda, I'm sure for both Rosenberg and San Francisco, when they might have three, four, or five of our proposals. But they never called and said: Which one do you really want?"

I should say, on the other hand, that maybe once or twice in the five year period I was superintendent in Berkeley, I called each of them and said: This one I really think is the best we've ever done. Take a .. good look at it. But I never said; 'Fund it'; or: Give it higher priority. Or I might put a note on one which says: This one is complicated; or: This one is different. Call me after you've read it; you might want to talk about it." But other than that we didn't do it. Morris : In other' words, you'd give a boost to something that was particularly good, but not ding something that -- ?

Foster: We would ding something in the house. Somebody comes in, in the sense of saying they wanted to do something, or brought in a lousy proposal; we would say: "Our best judgment says that nobody's going to buy that unless you do the following thing,;" or: "We'd like to help you, if you wants, in terms of making this a productive proposal. ' But never in the sense of dinging it and throwing the person out. And we get some crazy ones.

Morris : Does Jay Ball keep all of those on file?

Foster: I don't know. I assume that evewthing we've ever submitted is on file. I would assume there'd be some that just came in in which he interacted with people who never took it to fruition, that never got written up. Writing a proposal is a science and an art.

Morris: I understand there are now workshops given in Extension and other places on how to write a proposal.

Foster: Shirley Simeon, who worked with us for awhile, was doing some, I know, on the whole art of grantsmanship, if you want to call it that.

Morris: I think that is what it's called, but it seems unfortunate.

Foster: Well, I don't have any -- I understand the opposition to the term because it sounds like a huckster term. But if you talk about it as a science and an art of how to help districts or any institution by granting -- we had a great discussion at Southampton at the workshop. Some- body used the term "hustling," talking about it in a braader sense. Some people objected to the term. But we talked about the fact that survival is hustling in a sense.

You're hustling at the moment; you're hustling me in the sense of getting data from me. Now that doesn't make you a hustler in the crude connotation -- and we objected to that -- but hustling is a part of survival; it's a coping device, a living, entrepeneuring kind of thing.

I have the same feeling about the other; I don't see grantsmanship as a negative entrepeneurship or whatever it is. What you do with it is what determines whether it's good and bona fide or whether it's shoddy.

I have friends in HEW who say: 'Other than possibly one other school district in America, we've given you more money than anybody else. I've always said: I think you've made a good choice; how do you feel about it? They generally say: ',That's why we gave it to you.

Morris: Berkeley as a community, I think, prides itself on that kind of thing. Morris: Are you detached enough from it to be able to give a reason for why this should be so?

Foster: It's an exciting place, in the sense that there is a wide range of ideas that are going on, and there are very bright people in the total Berkeley culgure. Other than that, though, as you look back -- when I came to Berkeley, there was only a million and q quarter in grant money in '68. We moved that to five or six million dollars. Part of it was organizing to do it.

When I inherited Jay Ball, he was a sub-cabinet level position with relatively low power. He couldn't really do the kinds of things -- and he's very skilled. I ghought I knew a lot about grants when I came here; he knew at least as much as I did. You have to organize if you decide you're going to do it.

I think the desegregation of the schools made Berkeley additionally attractive. I think the multi-ethnicity and the desegregation adds to it. It's all part of it.

I think also people want to be sure that if Berkeley succeeds, that they have some of their grant money here because they want to be a part of the success.

Morris: That's an interesting concept, yes. Would this apply primarily to the national people?

Foster : Yes. I think it would also apply to Rosenberg or San Francisco, maybe more than Zellerbach. If something unusual is going on in either the Berkeley community or the Berkeley schools or the Berkeley City Council and started to get response, I would assume that John might get a question from his board; "Are we doing anything with them?'!

Morris:: t What about the Alameda County Foundation?

Foster: I've never gotten anything from them. What are you thinking about, for instance?

Morris: I was just wondering where they sat as a source of funds in the scheme of things.

Foster: It's probably our fault, not theirs, if there's something that was available. I don't remember either applying or getting anything.

By the way, in general -- and I don't knw this about anything as specific as the foundation -- Alameda County activities, in my experience, tend to be southern Alameda County oriented. Berkeley and Oakland are 'those places up there." M6rris: This may be a post-World War I1 phhomenon because,'for a hundred years, there wasn't much south county.

Foster: But, you see, the county educational office is in the south, the county offices themselves are in the south. I think they also see Berkeley and Oak2and as harder to work with than if you were doing it in San Leandro.

When we thought of the Bay Area Learning Center and putting together the coalition, we never thought of, say -- maybe w'e should have; I'm not saying it was the right thing -- we never thought of bringing Hayward into the picture, for instance.

Morris: Is this related to the community college?

ter: No. A grant was given to the collection of -- none of us are left -- Tom Shaheen, Marcus Foster, and myself -- called Bay Area Learning Cen- ter, which was to be an external learning center for the three districts in terms of in-service training and change. It was granted -- the LEA [Local Education Authority] was Oakland, and John Favors directs the Bay Area Learning Center.

Morris : It's primarily for teacher training?

Foster: Teacher and administrative training.

Morris: Is that the husband of Kathryne Favors, who's been head of several Berkeley schools intergroup education projects?

Foster: Yes. When we thought of putting it together, it was always in terms of the three districts rather than thinking in terms of some of the others, such as Palo Alto or Hayward; we didn't think of it because the three districts are really the Bay urban districts from our point of view. Right or wrong?

Morris: Well, these things are facts, and they may change with time. It's interesting the way the coalitions fall together. 6. IN CONCLUSION

Grant Funds as Risk Capital in Tight School Budgets

Morris: That covers most of my questions, other than -- I'd like to get as much as possible of this concept of yours of the grant funds as the risk capital and as the salvation, if you will, of the future.

Foster: T think you probably have most of them; let me just try to add a little, and if it doesn't add anything you can take if off.

Teacher militancy and the struggle between CTA (California Teachers Association) and AFT is going to place heavy demands on the regular budget for all available funds to go towards salaries and teacher benefits. At the present time, they're struggling for national control of education and have selected Berkeley as one of the struggle points. So a district like Berkeley is going to use up all of its money -- [telephone interruption] the struggle between the two is going to dry up any capital that's a- vailable. In fact, the Berkeley budget at the present time, from my outside perspective, can't balance without teachers leaving during the year and so on.

That means that experimentation of any kind, other than incidental, will become impossible without outside funds. Those outside funds must be of a nature that cannot be touched for salaries, because if they come as general money, they'll get soaked up in that way. My own thinking is that foundation money or HEW money -- it's categorical -- is what's going to keep the system alive in an intellectual sense.

Morris: I don't understand how grant funds would not also go for salaries; the nature of most projects is people.

Foster: Most funds will hire some people, and in that sense will be helpful to the other part of the operation, but that's not my prime interest in what we're talking about. That other part would survive somehow or other or else would have to go down. The question I'm really concerned about is what keeps the institution intellectually alive, changing, vibrant and so on. Morris: Is that necessarily new people?

Foster: It doesn't have to be necessarily new people. It could be people who are picked out from what's now going on. But it also gives them protection and enhancement to do something that they're trying to do.

Morris: If the foundations or HEW see a city like Berkeley as a place where there's going to be a struggle primarily on the union level, are they going to wish to stay out of that, and therefore not fund, or would they -- ?

Foster: There's no urban district that isn't going to face the same struggle, so they won't stay out unless it becomes more unreasonable than any other urban place.

Student Response to Experimental Schools in a Unified District

Morris: I often wonder what students learn, in their school systems, in addition to the official curriculum in reading and social studies and whatever.

Foster: I hope they learn, in addition, the whole question of choice, how to make good.choices from the options that are available in a situation; I hope they learn legislative-executive-judicial fundtion, which is one essence of the democratic process; I hope they learn levels of value development, and where their values are (I'm not saying the schools do it alone, but participate in terms of it); I hope they learn something about being a culture carrier and culture changer, in the sense that they are of history and at the same time are making history, and begin to make some choices in those directions; I hope they learn interpersonal skills on how to cope with other people and. how to solve problems; I hope they learn how to manage conflict rather than how to reduce feelings and emotions and how toddeal with those; I hope they learn entry level occupational skills, whether it takes them to a university or takes them to a job.

Mbr,r+s:: I was thinking specifically of the sense of what's going on within the institution around them -- if they sense the kind of struggle between vitality and self-perpetuating that you've mentioned.

Foster: I think there a few students who must sense it. But it's such a hard concept for adults to understand. Expecting most kids, unless they live in a home that really talks the language and lives it and so on -- I think it may be expecting more than we know how to teach. I think it would be exciting if they would understand it, if they really understood and didn't get disillusioned by it -- you have to worry about Poster: that. They ought to see this as exciting. It's almost like watching a mural being painted, in which you're sitting and watching the char- ac-t,er,ss going up on it. You ought to see it as: what's going to be next.

Morris: That's a nice image.

Foster: Yes. How to get them to see it this way, rather than saying: "1t's all bad because these are the forces that are working within it." Now, I don't know how to do that. I try to teach this when I'm teaching college classes. I think some of the college students (and most of those I'm teaching are teachers or administrators) understand that. But for many, it confirms their biases because it's too hard to think through.

Morris: That's too bad.

Foster: Yes it is, and I worry a lot about it because those biases don't need any more reaffirmation.

Morris: I wonder if you've goteen any feedback in the school district of how the high school students sense or respond to the experimental, outside- funded programs. Do they see it as one shhool system, or do they think of it in terms of two parallel school systems?

Foster: Yes, I've gotten a little of that feedback. It's kind of interesting: in the heyday of early '69, when we had what appeared to be more radical kids (I'm not sure), some of them decided to take a trip, and went up through Oregon and Washington and visited the high schools and so on. When they came back they said: "Hey -- we complain about some things, but we didn't know how far ahead we were in terms of what we have." So both of those things go on.

Most people are healthier if they can define specifically their environment and it is controlled and fixed. So for a youngster to learn that a school district is not a series of schools but might be a network of different kinds of experiences, of which some might be in school and some might not be in school -- some might be on a ship, some might be in a camp, some might be in an airplane -- is a very hard concept because they have never had anything from most adults, whether they be teachers or parents or so on, that has crystallized that concept. School is a place that has a room and all the things -- we're getting better in spreading that concept, but still it's a hard one.

For instance, the kind of thing I might say to a parent is: Maybe between the eighth and ninth grade, it would be better if we put these kids on some busess and they went some place else for six months. Maybe just the maturation and the experience of being, we'll say, in Mexico for six months would be a great experience. Foster: When that fourth grade class at Lincoln School, that we encouraged because they were interested, went to Mexico for three weeks, there were parents who raised questions: Is that a good way to spend tax- payers' dollars?

Morris: And: What will happen to their arithmetic workbook?

Foster: Yes. Even though the teachers were going along and some of the parents were along, they had regular school, and they joined the school in Mexico. I have hopes that the kids are growing up with more choice than we had when we grew up and will be better able to relate to their children than we were to our children.

Morris: Are you saying, also, that within the individual child and adult, there's this same tendency to wish to keep things normal and slow down and not rock the boat?

Foster: If the door to your house is not in the same fixed position every day, it's bothersone. You know where it is.

Morris: Right. One would probably bang one's nose if it were not in the same position.

Foster: I don't think systems are terribly different from individuals, except they work harder on individuals to make them part of the system than a person has to do it himself.

Morris: The system works harder on the individual?

Foster: Yes.

Morris: Thank you very much. I think you've given us some very interesting insights, and that many of your educational insights relate to the kinds of things that foundations are involved in.

Foster: One nice thing -- 1'm here in Berkeley, and so if there's something you suddenly wake up with -- an 'aha! Why didn't I ask it?' -- pick up the phone and call me.

Morris: That's very kind of you.

[End of Interview]

Interviewer-Editor: Gabrielle Morris Transcriber: Lee Steinback Final Typist: Judy Johnson The Bancroft Library University of California/Berkeley Regional Oral History Off ice

Bay Area Foundation History Series Volume IV

Orville Luster

GROWTH OF A GRASSROOTS YOUTH AGENCY IN THE 1960s

An Interview Conducted by Gabrielle Morris

@ 1976 by The Regents of the University of California TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Orville Luster

INTERVIEW HISTORY

1. THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL WORK Levels of Decision-Makers Building Program Stability

2. YOUTH FOR SERVICE IN 1959: PROGRAM AND FINANCE Getting Started: Quaker and Other Support Foundation Encouragement John Cahillts Fund-Raising

3. WORKING WITH PEOPLE Developing Staff Skills Success Stories: Staff and Client Troubled Times

4. INDEPENDENCE FROM THE QUAKERS, 1963 Becoming a United Crusade Agency Foundat ion Relationships Grow

5. PROBLEMS OF SUCCESS Personal Differences Time to Resign

6. REFLECTIONS ON COMMUNITY PROGRESS James Baldwin s TV Documentary Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Black Capitalism Future of Social Responsibility

7. PERSONAL CONCLUSIONS Working within the System in Small Ways Satisfactions and Concerns, 1975 A Note on Neighborhood Parks

INDEX INTERVIEW HISTORY

In the early 1960~~when streetwork was a fsresh new concept and many young blacks were beginning to come into professional social work, Youth for Service was a vital part of San Francisco's delinquency prevention programs embodying these ideas. This interview with Orville Luster records his observations as one of these young professionals, executive director of Youth for Service for a decade.

A husky, energetic man, Mr. Luster seemed to enjoy talking about his work. Using a cigar for emphasis, he conveyed a sense of the dedication and drama of working with troubled youth from black and other minority neighborhoods, and seeing many of them complete their education and find promising jobs in public agencies. He commented also on the various stages of Youth for Service's organizational life: sponsorship by the American Friends Service Committee; incorporation as an independent agency; acceptance for United Crusade funding; and on the influence of its board of directors, individual benefactors, and sizable foundation and federal grants.

In addition, Mr. Luster reflected on some of his broad philosophical concerns for young people and for his race generally, and candidly discussed some controversies that have risen around his work. Several times he referred to a detailed study of Youth for Service and its work being written by close friend Jack Levine, portions of which Mr. Luster kindly donated to The Bancroft Library.

The present interview was recorded on 25 April1975, in a big, colorfully decorated meeting room at the headquarters of the Mission Rebels, a former synagogue, in San F'rancisco's Western Addition. Mr. Luster was a consultant to the Rebels at the time, and also a consultant to the Sheriff's Department, as well as involved in several business projects. He and Mr. Levine reviewed the rough-edited transcript of the interview and suggested minor changes to tidy up some casual grammar.

Interviewer-Edit or

15 JU~Y 1976 Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley ÿÿ ate of Interview: 25 February 19751

1. THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL WORK

Levels of Decision-Makers

Morris: I understand you're now doing some consulting work with the San Francisco County Sheriff's Department. They're lucky to have the benefit of all your experience as director of Youth for Service and with the Probation Department before that.

Luster: Well, I'm down there now trying to work things out on job placements and things like that for some of the young men who've gotten into trouble.

It seems to me that so many young people, especially young executives and blacks and others, aren't willing to stick with all the detai1:i and talking to people and making arrangements. But we have to work with them and with the people they're helping, whether it's at the county jail or Youth for Service or wherever. I don't know--it's something that I think people should do. I know I have my problems, too, but I stayed with the job at Youth for Service, even after I got some bad marks, and finished what I'd started--saw that the building was finished.

Morris: Do you think that young people starting out today, working in the community, might do better if they had some sense of what had happened before--what people like you had gone through ten, fifteen years ago?

Luster: I think so. There's something I call the politics of social work, which is very important in that what you have to know is, first, how to work with your board, your policy-making board within the organizations itself. You really have to know how that mechanism is put together and how you work with them to get their support and to do some of the things you want to do. Luster: Then, secondly, you have to know how--in San Francisco--to work with the board of supervisors, the mayor's office; this is on the city and county level. Then there is, also, how do you work with the state level and then the federal level? Then you have individuals that you will call upon within the community, who make up the various power blocks : business and labor, civic, and all of these particular power blocs. It-'ssvery, important--you have to know about them and how you push a button to get them to make things move on certain levels.

Now, this takes a tremendous mount of time, and you have to walk a tightrope, and you will eventua3ly possibly do something like I did, in that you alienake one--like I alienated one faction of labor when I tried to start off on the McDonald thing. But I was ready to leave. I think it is these kinds of mechanics that I find lacking in some of the young people who are trying to do community work. So as a result, they get a few things done; but in the end, it really isn't doing that much good, only for a very few people. And then, secondly, they have not been able to work on a city-wide basis as we were doing. They're working mostly in communities within the city. This narrows the base, and it also narrows our effectiveness.

Morris: That's a good point. I would like to ask how you went about learning these skills of the politics of social work. Did you have those skills, did you feel, coming into Youth for Service?

Luster: Not altogether. My major was political science.

Morris : Where was that?

Luster: I graduated from San Francisco State. And then I'd worked with the Young Democrats. In fact, I used to fight Phil Burton and some of the others. I was strictly a program man, and I tried to embody programs, even at that time, because I felt that it's not the man, it's the program that saves people. You can't attach yourself to a man's coattails. You have to have a program of ideas, so that once you build a brick, or build a part of a program, well, then others can come along behind you and continue to build it. This is hard to try to instill in the minds of a lot of young people because they think they should do all these things overnight. They're not done overnight. Building Program Stabildty

Luster: Our biggest problems, as minority executives, is that we are constantly asking for money from downtown to help poor minorities who have very little money--in fact, no money. This creates a problem because here you are trying to walk this tightrope of saying, !'&a,y5, I have to go downtown ,,to get the money, " and then you are sometimes labeled Uncle Tom, or that you're giving in to the establishment; but what you learn how to do is work the establishment, or work within it. One of the things I used to state is, "I do not want to rock the boat, but get in the boat, and be a part of it."

Morris: And steer?

Luster: And steer. This is very difficult because you have to be quite strong at times and fight the staff and the board and fight for a lot of principles. It isn't very easy because you alienate a lot of people; it's very difficult. I wanted to build the building, and then I was ready to leave, which I did. No one believed I wanted to, but I had to because I was going through some personal problems with my daughter. I was getting a divorce, and this type of thing., But', above all, I had completed what I wanted to do, and at my age I wanted to get out and get into something else that wasn't quite as taxing, and I 'm very happy that I did.

But I feel like this--like I used to tell the board many, many times--"The building is five to ten years ahead of program, and that 's why we 're having trouble with program. " We 're going through our second executive director at Youth for Service [since I left]. It's no reflection upon the young man because it's very difficult in these times to find f'unds to fill one acre of space, and that's what we have. But it's all paid for, and so is all the equipment.

Morris: Where would you like to see the program go?

Luster: Well, the program is going to go--I finally made contact with the present executive director, and I know the chairman very well. There's only a very few board members on there now who do not like me. My heart is still there, and Mr. Cahill is doing a very tremendous job of continuously raising f'unds for the agency.

Morris: Is this Supervisor Cahill?

Luster: No. Cahill Construction--the old man, John R. Cahill, Sr. He was the one who raised all the money in the beginning. I feel that this is very important; now what we have to do at Youth for Service is to Luster: try to get permanent funds, in the amount of about $150,000 to $200,000 a year, and a pension plan. Now, that's a second phase. The first phase was getting the building, getting it paid for, and all the equipment. After that's done, then the program can be developed. That's when the real development of the agency is going to take hold and really do an effective job.

In the development stages and early stages of our existence, we had to sort of flow with the traffic of information and the flow of funds. So that sort of determined what kind of a program you were going to have, regardless of what you wanted to do. That's why it's so very important to have this permanent funding and a pension plan.

Morris : So that the organization, in a sense, is independent.

Luster: That's right. But also has some stability because, like in my case now--and I was criticized for this, but I had to do it or I never would have been able to survive as long as I did--when I left Youth for Service after fourteen years, I received six weeks' vacation and two months ' severance pay. That's all. But that was no one else's fault; I accepted the job on those terms. Most of the programs are like this. When you do have some pension plans, they are very, very small. So the only benefits that you had at Youth for Service was your Social Security and a hospitalization plan.

This does not add to the stability that will attract the kind of people you want to do program. Pioneers, yes, as I was, but it does not lend itself to the person who needs stability and security in trying to develop this kind of program. This flows not only from this person, but also to the clients and to the community which you are trying to serve. So this has to be done. I think that once we do this, we are going to be able to do a lot of things.

In our schools, now-- I was just reading something about Dr. Sullivan the other day, talking about trying to make the schools--

Morris: Neil Sullivan?

Luster: Yes. --more like community schools, where they work twelve months out of the year. The teachers are paid a decent salary. The community, the students and everybody else are given control of their schools in their neighborhoods and have a say in finding funds, because the flight of a lot of the companies, a lot of the middle-class families to suburbia has just added to instability of the schools.

Morris: And the cities.

Luster: And our shortage of funding. Getting Started: Quaker and Other Support

Morris: Going back to you as a pioneer, how did you get from political science studies into working with a service organization?

Luster: I needed a job. It was just as simple as that. At that time, I was trying to find myself. I had taken some city personnel tests, after graduation from State, for Park and Recreation, for Muni Railway, and also for the juvenile Court. I stayed on the list for about four years and never used it because I was doing other things. I was trying to get off into research, doing some things with the -Sun Reporter and also with the Urban League. This did not pan out, so I did some substitute teaching, and then I went down and put my name on the active list for the juvenile court.

The first job to come up was a counselor at Log Cabin Ranch, which is under the juvenile court. I stayed there three and a half years, and as a result of this I was approached by one of the young men who was at that time a part of Youth for Service. His name was Emil Connors, and I was asked--I had never met Carl May--to make an application for executive director. So I did, and I was accepted. Then, in 1959 I took over the leadership of Youth for Service.

Morris: Were the Quakers still involved at that point?

Luster: Yes. We stayed under the auspices of the Quakers until 1963, which was a very wonderful relationship. We had our problems at times, like in many, many agencies at that time. We were all struggling, and this was a very explosive type of agency, with a tremendous amount of crises. No one really understood exactly what was going on, even myself, because we were fighting so many members of the establishment. Luster : The Rosenberg Foundation, especially, and also the San Francisco Foundation, were the ones that gave the largest amount of foundation funds to keep us alive in our formative years. If it had not been for the Rosenberg Foundation and the San Francisco Foundation, in the early development stages, we would have folded. They came up two or three times with ten thousand dollars that kept us afloat. Our budget was very modest at that time. I think our budget was--if I can remember correctly--about twenty thousand dolaars a year. So we were ab&e to get those grants and then get some private donations.

The salaries were quite low, but I was determined--when I left Log Cabin Ranch, I gave up a civil service job, and I had to take a cut in pay of $180 a month, because I was the highest paid counselor in the state. We worked six days a week; we got time-and-a-half for that sixth day. So that was a big decision to make because I had two kids, and I had always wanted to make a little better salary.

There wasn't any tremendous amount of records. Carl was a very wonderful person, in that he had an idea, but there were really no guidelines to follow.

Morris : Now, was he on the board at that point?

Luster: No. Carl had started Youth for Service, and then later the Quakers came in on it.

Morris : Was he a Quaker himself?

Luster: Yes.

Morris: Was he from San Francisco?

Luster: Yes. And he was a painter by trade.

Morris : Housepainter?

Luster: Yes. A housepainter by trade.

Morris: Neat !

Luster. Yes. One of the things that intrigued me was the whole idea about doing streetwork and doing outreach with youth. IQstay of three and a half years at Log Cabin Ranch had really enabled me to cut across all the racial and geographical boundaries of San Francisco because %here we had Chinese, Spanish, whites, blacks--everything. Morris: Was Youth for Service set up the same way, so that any kind of kid in trouble could come there?

Luster: Yes. In the beginning, it was mostly set up towards youth in high school. But as we started doing work projects with youth who were not in school, even before I came, we found that a lot of our youth were getting into difficulty--stealing cars, there was a great amount of pot smoking by a lot of the youth and drinking wine, and this type of pthing, and a lot of bopping, or fighting, as you might call it.

When I came to Youth for Service, I wanted to get more of these youth into our program. Knowing so many kids from my experience at Log Cabin Ranch, and with the help of boys at Youth for Service who were also on the city Youth Council, I was able to develop pretty good contact with all sorts of youth throughout the city and encourage them to come to Youth for Service.

Now, the Ford Foundation kind of wanted us to be based at Hunter's Point and become a neighborhood program, and I said no. So then we settled for having a neighborhood-based program, plus a city-wide program. Then after about ayear, Ford decided that we had made such good progress that they would take the money away from research--which was one of the very few times I have ever seen money taken away from-research and given to action. So we were able to continue the program, and then in 1963 we even got into the United Bay Area Crusade.

Then, after that, I started trying to get into federal finding. We received our first NYC project in 1965, and that really started us on our road of receiving large grants and having enough staff and some funds to pay some of the kids to do some of the things they wanted to do.

What I'm going to do is let you read this copy of the book we're writing on Youth for Service." I think we've captured a lot of the history and some of the things are so good in this.

*A history of Youth for Service and the City Hall in the Ghetto, Jack Irvine, manuscript in process, San Francisco, 1975. Selections in Foundation Series papers. Morris: I'd really like the opportunity to read it; I'd consider it a privilege.

Luster: We spent about two years compiling these first ten chapters, even before I left. There are a lot of things we still want to say, and we're now looking for some help in getting iti published.

For the last fourteen years, I've talked to Jack Irvine daily, almost, and given him my inner thoughts, thmoughbut all the crises. So what he's written is quite true, even some things that I had forgotten, because he was writing them down all the time.

Morris: Did he use a tape recorder while he was working on this?

Luster: No, he didn't, but with all his notes, and with all the things that we have talked about, he was able to describe them pretty authentically.

Morris : I believe that.

Foundat ion Encouragement

Morris: I wonder if I could ask you a couple of specific questions about working with John May and Ruth Chance, which you may not have gone into in this book because your focus was Youth for Service.

Luster: No, we did this. Purposely.

Morris: You did?

Luster: Oh, yes, and you will find that, because we couldn't have made it without them. I think that first I would like to say that with Ruth Chance, we always looked upon her as a mother of the foundations. She was always very frank, quite concerned, but also questioning: n'umber one, "Now is this really what you wanted to do? Two, "Are you committed?" Three, "Are you willing to fail, and then try to pick up the pieces again?" And fourthly, "Will the young people that you're trying to involve benefit from this type of involement?"

This is one of the things that I really appreciate, because she was always asking these kinds of questions to really get you to think about what you're doing. You know, it's not just the money, it's the involvement. A lot of times a lot of benefits are derived from this type of involvement. There was never any sense of urgency about: We have to have guaranteed success. That was not the point, but Luster: there should be some type of involvement that would benefit the individuals involved. I think that 's what I appreciated.

She also understood the politics of social work. She understood the pressures that small agencies with boards, with untrained staff, have in trying to keep together these kinds of programs. She also tried to share with our staff ideas that she was able to gather from successes or failures of other programs that they had funded.

Morris : For instance?

Luster: One program over in Richmond, where an aviator had taken about twenty-five kids and taught them English and math through the method of learning how to fly. I think this was good because here we were able to share with this; this was even made into a movie.

Morris: I think I saw it on television.

Luster: Yes. It was these kinds of things. Also, if there were some individual who was coming into town from some other foundation who she felt had some expertise--like, I remember she put us in contact with the Ford Foundation. They had a consultant by the name of Cressa Larson who was quite helpful to me in my formative years. She Spent?weeks with me at a time, all day, drilling me, asking questions, giving out ideas.

Then there was a Mr. Bruckner, a former director of the Y in Chicago; he'd also been connected with Hull House, and also was a Quaker. So it was these kinds of people--I could go on and on--who come in over a period of time. We had a lot of foreign visitors who came through the State Department, and a lot of times they would go by to see Mrs. Chance, and she would sometimes refer them to us if she felt that we could derive some benefits from their visit, and vice versa. So that over the long period, we not only had someone who was willing to talk about funding, but also to talk about other sources that could help you, even outside the area of just funding; and then she was concerned about you as a person. I think that made it--well, it was just a warm relationship. I think that was very evident when she got ready to retire. A lot of the people who showed up at the party for her showed up out of a great appreciation of an individual who had really given something to the community other than just funds. They got more than funds from Ruth Chance.

Morris: She gave of herself and built these kinds of friendships.

Luster: That's right. It was not just funds. I mean, sure, she had funds. She always explained to me there was a responsibility to the Luster: Foundation board, but she was interested in you as an individual, and your agency. If there was to be criticism, it was always constructive criticism, and she was not afraid to give that, either.

Morris: Does this mean that sometimes she'd say: We can't fund this kind of a proposal, but if you redirect it to something else, maybe my board would consider it.

Luster: I think that she would always be very frank with you about what they could fund and what they could not. There was never any pussyfooting around about where you stood when you came to see Ruth. If there was something that they could not fund, she always would tell you, like: We do not do any capital funding. In other words: We do not purchase buildings, we are interested in programs.

There was never any fat in a proposal that you could present to her. It had to be the bare bones, where you were actually helping the youth. If you were paying salaries, they always had to be in line with what the going rate was for that type of work. That's one thing I appreciated about it. There was no nonsense about any of her budgeting ideas when it came to funding.

They were very sensible, and you were told point-blank exactly how they stood. It was just a policy of the board, not policy that she was trying to instill herself--just a policy that was handed down by the board. So you never had to worry about where you stood, because whatever the policy of the board, it was her policy. It was a good thing because you never had to worry about: Well, I'm going to have to play this game or that game. There was none of that.

Morris: Did she ever come and meet with your board, or get to know any of the kids in the project?

Luster: Yes, she did. She met s'ome of our board members. She knew them personally. She knew some of our staff. She did visit our agency. We brought her just as close as we could. Now, in the beginning this was easy, but as time progressed and we were getting into the late sixties, especially when we started having the problems in the neighborhoods during the riots and this type of thing, it became a little bit more difficult. There was even a tremendous amount of danger to do this. This hurt, too, because many, many times we had been able to do this, not only with foundation people, but with volunteers.

There are two kinds of volunteers that I try to state that were very important. One was a volunteer that you could involve directly with the program, which was very good. The other volunteer was one Luster: that could only be involved indirectly. That would be like with funding and this type of thing. But the one who could involve himself directly--it made for a more meaningful type of relationship.

This was very difficult in the late sixties; it also was a difficulty with a lot of agencies like ours which then had to rely mostly upon business funding and federal funding, which I didn't particularly like. The direct involvement was a lot better because from that we were able to get some good individuals who gave of themselves a lot of times, which you could not measure in amount of money.

John Cahill's Fund-raising

Morris: When you mentioned Mr. Cahill, I wondered if he was the kind of board member you could involve both in program and in funding?

Luster: No, Mr. Cahill was never a board member. The first time I met Mr. Cahill, I was asked to come to his office and explain my program, which I did. We had only been in existence a very short while, maybe about two or three years, and he wanted to know something about what we were doing. So he listened very patiently, and he patted me on my back and gave me a thousand dollars. Eight years later, I was called in to work with some members of the Junior Chamber of Commerce and the Senior Chamber of Commerce that he had gotten together because he wanted to raise a million dollars for a program for some youth agency. The Junior Chamber of Commerce was trying to interest him in a park at Hunter's Point. He said no, he didn't want that. He wanted a situation where the kids could be taught vocational training--reading and writing, but also some type of trade.

Morris: Marketable skill?

Luster: That's right. So, after about three or four months of dickering (he remembered our earlier association--eight years earlier), then he decided that he was going to raise some funds for Youth for Service for a building and set up some shop classes, which he did.

Morris: Where did the Jaycees end up in this?

Luster: They ended up not getting their money. But it was his decision. It wasn't mine. He had never done this before, and so they knew that there wasn't any way that I had influenced him. It was just something that he wanted to do. So he did it. They were disappointed, Luster: as I was happy, elated, but it wasn't anything that I had done. It was a decision that he made himself.

Morris: Do you very often have this kind of generous person who decides on his own that he wants to do something that you also want to see done?

Luster: Well, this is the first time on this type of scale that it's ever happened to me. I'm very proud that it did because as a result we have this beautiful building and all this equipment. But the other times it was whenever you could get individuals involved directly, you could get things done on a small scale, but not on this magnitude because this man was able to raise about six to seven hundred thousand dollars cash.

Morris : He went out, then, and talked to .other people?

Luster: Yes. Like companies. Like PG&E, Bank of America, Safeway, Fireman's Fund; I could just go on down the line. It was just unbelievable, because we'd never gotten this kind of money and we'd never gotten it from business this way. The building and all the equipment was paid for in cash. We moved into the building, there was no mortgage- burning.

Morris: That's a once-in-a-lifetime event.

Luster: That's right. It was something that had never been done in San Francisco before for a small, black agency.

Morris: Would Mr. Cahill and some of those other businessmen have had acquaintance with your board members?

Luster: Yes, to a certain extent, and then a lot of the contacts I made myself, personally. Mr. Cahill was a personal contact I made. It was not through a board member. 3. WORKING WITH PEOPLE

Developing Staff Skills

Luster: This is something that I'm finding out (and this is why this book, I feel, would be so important )--that a lot of the young executives do not feel that they have to do this, but they do. A lot of boards are good, and sometimes you can get board members who are fired up and who are willing to do this; but this is very time-consuming. A lot of our board members do this on a voluntary basis, and a lot of times they do not have that kind of time. So it means that the executive director, or better still a fund-raiser, is going to have to go out and get these personal contacts.

See, in Mr. Cahill's instance, the first time I met him, I got a thousand dolLars. Eight years later--not one day later, not two years, but eight long years later--I saw him again. And I never did see the man in the years between.

Morris: That relates to what you were saying earlier about stability in your staff and working over the long haul.

Luster: That's right. If I had not stayed there, possibly this might not have happened; it could have. But a lot of my other staff stayed, too. A lot of staff has stayed a long time. So it 's this kind of thinking that I think has to go into making things work. Right now, a lot of our leadership within some of the programs are like the shifting sands, constantly blowing or just shifting, constantly, and that isn't good.

Morris : Did your board membership stay the same, too?

Luster: No, that would shift also. And that also was a problem. But it's these kinds of things that one has to face up to, and there's nothing we can do about it. Morris : In the early days of Youth for Service, Rosenberg was also making some grants to Neighborhood House, over in North Richmond, which was also sponsored by the Quakers and working with black families. Were you acquainted at all with Red Stephenson?

Luster : Oh, yes. We visited Red Stephenson. I had my staff to visit the Neighborhood House. In fact, I went over also. One young man who was working for me at one time went to work for the Neighborhood House. Then, later on, my sister-in-law went to work for Neighborhood House, in charge of job development. I made it my business to send my staff out occasionally, at least once a year or once every other year, to visit some of the other agencies and find out what they were doing.

Morris : Throughout the Bay Area?

Luster : Yes. Especially those agencies that were in rela*ed areas, and that's the way we kept in touch. Not to any great extent, but we were concerned if there was something new, innovative, that we could learn. So we did do this.

It was very difficult, .in that whenever you would go into an agency like Youth for Service you would never know what you were going to find once you turned your key. There are a tremendous amount of crises. You are constantly looking for funds. You are under pressure trying to get proposals in, trying to do all these things, and keeping a viable program going is very difficult; it's very taxing.

Morris: Yes. How much time does it take to put a proposal together, and does it affect what's going on in the agency where that proposal's getting written?

Luster : Usually, in the early years, we would always try to find some professor who was sympathetic and who would help us in trying to write proposals.

Morris : That 's a good idea.

Luster : And then we would write him in as a consultant and researcher, or something of that sort. This is how we got most of our proposals started in the beginning, small ones. When we started doing the federal funding, this was done mostly through my efforts--just sort of rewriting the guidelines and working with one of the field representatives of Neighborhood Youth Corps [NYC]. Then, after we were able to get some staff aboard, we'd have a program director or some person who was brought in to do a job, but they also had the added responsibility of writing proposals. Luster: So you were constantly writing proposals. A lot of them were never funded, but this is something that you had to do. Once you got the history of the agency down, all you had to do was keep updating it. And then if your accountant could put out a pretty good budget, that would be done. The middle part would be the idea itself. And you had to be very careful, in that you did not want to be too wordy. It had to be to the point. The main things were the board of your agency, your policy and history, and your budget. Then the other part, about the idea itself, could be just very simple, very succinct. It wouldn't have to be too much; what you wanted to prove was that you could do a job. We tried to keep the things we wanted to do sort of basic and simple, because some of the young people that we were working with only had limited skills. They were delinquents, and they had a lot of problems. So if you tried to become too sophisticated, you would never get anything done. In other words, you'd be trying to do more than your clients could do.

Morris: I think that's a good caution.

Success Stories: Staff and Client

Luster: And then, what we also tried to do was to encourage staff to go back and get additional education. This was good, in that it not only demonstrated the value of education to the youth, but it also helped your staff. We did not have any pensions or anything like this if they did stay, but when they got ready to leave, they could move on into something better, which a lot of them did. Like Zeke Singleton, who used to be my director of NYC, now is over at the University of California Agriculture Department. He's in a program with 4-H.

Sherry Waite, who was one of my administrative assistants, we helped her get into UC. She got a master's in social work. Now she's in community services in the Mission District, for the welfare department. Vera Hale, who was also administrative assistant, is now with Self-Help in Chinatown. She was able to get her master's through our encouragement. Earl Fletcher, who was director of our adult work training, now is urban affairs director for PG&E. Bill Chinn, who was one of our former directors of adult work training and counseling and proposal writing, is director of special education for City College.

Morris: Did any of these people start out as kids in the project? Luster: Yes. We have one we just placed the other day, Dawson Leong, who was actually a delinquent. We picked him up as a volunteer first, from Chinatown. Then, after a while, he became a streetworker and went back to State and got his degree--over a pretty long period of time.

Last December he received his master's and he is now supervisor of employment for BART, all of BART. He's only about thirty years old, and he's in charge of all of their recruiting, for minorities and others, doing a terrific job. In fact, he just made his probation, and now he's going to go south pretty soon, to interview other minorities as engineers. He's going as part of a team for BART.

Morris: When you say, "~adehis probation," does that mean his court record is now clean?

Luster: No, probation in his new position. He's now a permanent employee.

Morris: Okay.

Luster: He was a member of some of the gangs in Chinatown. He rode motor- cycles. He had fought with some of the tongs, and this type of thing. Quite an interesting young man.

Then we have another young lady, who is black, who used to be in our adult work training program. She is now a full-time counselor out at City College. I was sort of accused sometimes of having a fatherly image, of trying to encourage these people to do this, but I really didn't care because I felt that if we were ever going to do anything, this had to be done.

You have to help some of these people get into positions that they can come back and help. Now they are doing some good things, and they will be able to do some more things. They'll be able to do greater things in the community as they grow in stature in their positions; they can come back and help Youth for Service. They can help agencies like the Mission Rebels. Bill Chinn is on the board here. Quetta Tyree is on the board at OIC [opportunities Industri- alization Center of America, Inc.]. Dawson later on will get some boards, and right now he's helping with some tutorial programs in Chinatown, but he has the withal1 to do it now.

So these are the kinds of things we have been doing. In fact, we have two people at PG&E. Then we have another young man, who was my administrative assistant, who's in charge of the Concord station, supervisor of all the employees. Then we have one young man out in Hunter's Point, who is in charge of a program of giving legal assistance to the neighborhoods. His name is Peewee Mitchell. He Luster: was in my NYC program, and also he has a turn now in school. So, as you look back, although we made a lot of enemies, we made a lot of mistakes, there have been some positive results. And then there's one young Caucasian who was paroled to me by Judge Levin--his name is Robert Dibner--who received his doctorate in psychology, and now he is teaching at New York University, in the School of Optometry.

Morris : That 's pretty good.

Troubled Times

Luster: Well, yes. Those are some of the things that made it worthwhile. I would hope that I could say that I didn't make mistakes, I didn't make enemies, but I did. I don't feel bad about it. I would do it all over again.

Morris: Was this primarily within Youth for Service, or was it with other organizations as they started to come into being?

Luster: A little bit within Youth for Service and other organizations, too; it came down to a lot of jealousy because a lot of times some of them just were not as fortunate as we were. We were quite lucky, but we worked at it. A lot of people do not work at it, I'm finding out. We worked at it night and day. We really did.

Morris: There was a summer in the late '50s when there was considerable trouble in the city--fights and vandalism involving many young people. Were you and your board involved in trying to settle things?

Luster: Oh, yes. In the book there, we talk about Operation Freeze. We were one of the first to come out and try to get the youth to sort of calm down their neighborhoods. We worked with Mayor Shelley--mostly Shelley during that time--and also Alioto and the chief of police. In fact, one time, George Christopher, when he was mayor, and Chief Cahill attacked our agency one Wednesday; and then on that Thursday Mr. Beard from the Housing Authority attacked us and Mister Justin Hermannfrom Redevelopment; and then on that Friday we had a nice speech that was made by Chief Cahill in Vancouver, praising streetwork. Then on Saturday, we had a lead editorial in the Examiner, praising Youth for Service. All this was in the week that I call 'The Week That Was the Week' for me, because usually a person would never survive that type of attack, but we did because we were clean. Morris: How do you explain that they would attack you in town, and then go out of town and say you were doing a great job?

Luster: What happened after this attack started on Tuesday by the mayor and the chief of police, was that the Quakers asked for a meeting. They wanted to know: what had we done?

Morris : They came back to you?

Luster: Yes. I was not allowed to go to the meeting at that particular time, but I told them I hadn't done anything. What they were complaining about was that we were organizing groups. That had been done while Carl was director--they had one big fight with him about organizing the dances.

I only had three staff members; we didn't have time to be getting into any funny stuff. So I told them I didn't have any extra time, even after work. I mean, I had a young baby at home at that time .

As a result, they asked the chief and the mayor what had I really done, or my staff? Nothing. The only problem was that we were organizing the groups. So, as a result, I was able to get to the chief, and we worked together after that; and we worked together with Justin Hermann.

Mr. Beard died, but all the people who had been fighting us--we finally made Christians out of them. So now the chief and I, we're very good friends, even with his new wife. I can call him any time I want to. Mr. Justin Hermann, before he passed, offered me a job and wanted me to still stay at Youth for Service, and I said no.

You know, two times I was threatened with grand jury indictments by the captain of the juvenile bureau, and the superior court judge in charge of juvenile court during that time. But I refused to cooperate, and they never did do anything about it; but they did threaten me with grand jury indictments if I wouldn't give out some information, and I told them I just wouldn't do it.

Morris: About some of your people?

Luster: About some of the youth. I never did do this.

Morris: How did you manage to avoid giving the information?

Luster: I just wouldn't do it. I hadn't done anything, and I said: We're not out here to inform on people. We're not going to interfere with your investigation either, but we're not going to be informers. Luster: Judge O'Connor was pretty angry with me, but he had to leave me alone. Those are the kinds of stands we had to take. I don't think that a lot of people would have been willing to take them, but I did. Even with the police department we had to take some pretty tough stands. ÿÿ ape turned over]

4. INDEPENDENCE FROM THE QUAKtZRS, 1963

Becoming a United Crusade Agency

Morris: We talked about Ruth Chance. How about John May and the San Francisco Foundation? Did Ruth send you to John, or were you in touch with both of them?

Luster: I don't recall now. I believe it was through one of the board members that we finally got to John May. We've got to remember, the Quakers were very much in touch with Mr. May and Ruth Chance. That's how I'd first come to the attention of them. It was through the Quakers.

Morris: Who, particularly?

Luster: We had Mr. Russell Jorgenson, who was a fund-raiser, and then the executive director, Steve Thierman, was also there." They would mostly negotiate the contracts until we became independent.

Morris : When was that?

Luster: We became independent from the Quakers in 1963. Then, in '65, we were able to get into the United Bay Area Crusade [UBAC].

"Thierman has written about t.he beginnings of Youth for Service in Welcome to the World, Discoveries with the AFSC on the Frontiers of Social Change, American Friends Service Committee, San Francisco, 1968. Chapter 111, Hard-to-Reach Youth, is in the Foundation Series papers . Morris: Did you participate in the discussions and decision to go independent?

Luster: Yes. Mr. Mortimer Fleishhacker, Dr. deMarche, and Mrs. Florette Pomeroy came out to visit the Quakers, and that's when the decision was made, and they asked that we be given independent status.

Morris: Are they on your board?

Luster: No. Mr. Mortimer Fleishhacker was attached to a lot of civic activities,at that time, and he was with UBAC'. 'He-was there with Florette Pomeroy. She was the director at that time and he was in charge of planning, I think. So that's how that came about.

Morris: Did UBAC agree to take you on for funding at that point?

Luster: Yes. And then the Quakers gave us up.

Morris: Did you agree that it was time?

Luster: Oh, yes. I thought it would be good; but I would say this, that my tenure with the Quakers was not difficult because they never bothered anyone. I reported directly to .Steve, but I did what I wanted to do anyway

Morris: The Quakers seem to have really been movers and shakers in a number of things in the Bay Area.

Luster: Sure, that's right.

Morris: Isn't that their process--they start an organization, and after a few years decide: You're grown up, fellow; you're on your own.

Luster: Sure. It wasn't difficult for them to give it up because they had always done this. So I had a good relationship. In fact, Zeke Singleton, now, is on the executive committee of the Friends Service Committee.

Morris: So it's gone full circle.

Luster: Oh, yes.

Morris: How about Josephine Duveneck? Did she turn up on the scene at all?

Luster: Yes, she was on the executive committee, and also she was on the community relations committee that we had to report to in the early stages. I did attend some of those meetings and also the Quaker staff meetings every Wednesday and make a report. But we were quite Luster: small at that time and only had two or three people. We were doing mostly work projects and some job development and this type of thing. So we really hadn't taken off in any direction.

It wasn't until we got into the United Bay Area Crusade and got the federal funding that we really started expanding our activities. But through the Quakers we were able to get a lot of contacts that were later broadened to others. In the initial stages, these were very good contacts, especially with the San Francisco Foundation and the Rosenberg Foundat ion.

Foundation Relationships' Grow

Morris: Did the San Francisco Foundation have any different way of going about things or different ideas about how you ought to handle the funding or anything?

Luster: John was a little different from Mrs. Chance. John would insist on talking to the chairman of the board, and he dealt mostly with the Quakers. So I did not have to do much in the beginning. And then, even after we became independent, it was mostly that I would have to take the chairman down with me. A very nice person.

The one way that I would relate to him a lot of times was through Mr. Seaton Manning. He was a professor out of San Francisco State who had been with the Urban League for a long time. They were real close friends. So whenever I wanted to reach John, I would do it through this person.

I found that John was very warm, but he was very businesslike, and being a larger foundation, I felt that sometimes he was a lot more careful in trying to keep certain things away because maybe the pressure or the demands and this type of thing--

Morris: In terms of a personal relationship?

Luster: That's right. So we never did have a real strong personal relationship. It turned into that later on, but with Mrs. Chance, it was that right off the bat, you know, although John was very nice. But you could tell he'd been a businessman at one time, and a very good one. His decorum was a little bit different. This never did disturb me because this was something that--he was very nice. He was very businesslike in our dealings, and if there was a good proposal, and he could fund it, he would. But it was not that type of warmness that you would get from Mrs. Chance. Morris: You said later on he did become warm. Did you have some other contact outside the foundation-grantee relationship?

Luster: Yes. We would meet at different receptions, and here again it was-- like with the problems you had with the chief of police and everything else.

I never will forget (and we talk about it in the book), some youth had thrown some rocks at some.of the school windows at Hunter's Point, and other bits of vandalism. So we were able to initiate what we called the Rock Brigade. We involved the police department to help out with the traffic, and the park and recreation department to use their building. We involved the department of public works to give us some equipment, and housing authority people. We took two- gallon buckets, and we picked up the rocks and then we did something positive with them.* Then we asked the community to give us lunches, and we had more people from the general community, especially Caucasions, Spanish, youths, and everything else, to come out there for this particular day.

And as a result of this--it was a tremendous project, one of the best we ever had because hundreds and hundreds of people were involved--the Chronicle gave us an article daily, and we had all the TV stations and everything else. So as a result, the San Francisco Foundation just gave us ten thousand dollars without any solicitation, because of this tremendous community involvement, and it was one of the best.

Then, in 1963, we tried to do it again. It was entitled the Rock Crusade, but that was the year that the President was killed. They were flying up a black-and-white and a color camera crew from Los Angeles, and Time was going to do us. We didn't get a chance to do it because it was raining and it was very sad. We did have a candlelight memorial service for John F. Kennedy.

Morris: Yes, that was kind of a watershed, I think, in the community.

Luster: That's right. So we didn't get a chance to do it.

I think that over a period of time, John was kind of 'wait and see' because we were kind of a rag-tail agency, you have to admit. We had very little to offer.

*See Chapter 7 for a summary of Youth for Service's work in building neighborhood parks. Ed. Morris : Did Rudy Glover make any change at all in the way the San Francisco Foundation did things?

Luster : I never did have any relationship with Rudy, no more than to meet him once or twice, because I still preferred to deal with John.

Morris : Rudy didn't get out into the community that much, or he was involved in some other thing?

Luster : At the time that he came on, see, we were mostly federal funds at that particular time. We never did hardly have to go through him, and on top of that, I never did deal with even Lew White. I dealt strictly with John, since I had made the contact through him. I would meet Rudy, and we would talk sometimes socially, but--this is one thing I've learned--once you establish a relationship with someone at a foundation or a company, it's always been my policy never to go to anyone else as long as they're there.

Morris : That sounds like a good idea. I was just wondering if you'd been acquainted with Rudy in other Kinds of activities. Is he a local boy?

Luster : No. He came down to see me a couple of times. He was having some problems at the Foundation. We discussed them, but I never did get involved. It was strictly shop Calk and this kind of thing, but I'd never get involved.

Morris : Would he come and check with you on some kinds of questions he was having about proposals?

Luster : No, I never did get involved with that. But what I tried to do, I was very careful, and I had one policy (and this is something that will be discussed in some of the other chapters that haven't been written yes)--1 always had a list of my critics. I've always tried to get some of the young people, especially the new executives-- sometimes they won't do it, but I always made a policy of doing it, for instance, if T had a visiting fireman from Washington or some foundation person who was going to give us some money.

There is Captain Hallihan, Irving Kritzfeld, who used to be head of the Mission centers, and there were a few others in town that I knew were my critics--a lot of times even good, respected board members. So I would say, "NOW, before you get involved with us"-- and even if a foundation was going to give us some money, I'd say, I' Now, we do have some critics, and I'd like for you to go by and see them," and I'd call them up.

Morris: [~aughs]That's sort of disarming the opposition, isn't it? Luster: Oh, no. no.

Morris: No?

Luster: They would tell them exactly what they thought about me, the agency, and everything else. So I'd thank 'em. I'd say, "Thank you very much. "

Morris: Did you ever find that your critics had some suggestions or beefs that were useful?

Luster: I would always listen to them, and if they were usef'ul, yes, I would 1I say, That's a good point .'I But, see, our biggest problem at that particular time was that you were fighting so hard just to stay alive--just for funds for staff, and also trying to establish some type of continuous contacts with the youth--that it made it very difficult.

A lot of times you were a small agency with a very small building, very small staff, a new board, and no accountability or credibility. When I say .'accountability,' it was that you had not really established any credibility, so you had to be accountable to a certain extent. It was such a small area that you had to be accountable. So this meant that they were fighting you a lot of times because they did not want you to come in and start sharing the welfare dollar. It was understandable.

What I would do whenever I had a critic, and I still do that-- if I find that you're one of the critics, I don't try to fight you. I'll talk to you. If someone comes and wants to know something about our agency, I say, I'.We have our friends and our enemies. So you ought to meet them. Then make up your own mind," I said, "because I'm not going to try to make any excuses for what we are doing. We think we're doing pretty good, and we know we have a lot of faults, but now you make up your mind if you want to be involved with us."

So I did this, even with a lot of foundation people.

Morris: Once you began to get a good relationship established with Rosenberg and the San Francisco Foundation, was that a help later on with other foundations?

Luster: Oh, yes. It was very helpful with the Ford Foundation. It was helpf'ul with individuals and also other foundations that we were able to contact. And they even made suggestions of where we could get money. Morris: Other local people?

Luster: Oh, yes. It was very helpful. They were our greatest source of encouragement for getting additional funds. John did do this. And also talking about different things, and in their annual reports; and if there were any other reports that they felt could be helpful, they would send them. We received that from the San Francisco Foundation sometimes. And then through some of our board members, like Mr. Manning--sometimes John and he would have lunch, and they would talk about different things, and this information was funneled back to us.

Morris: Seaton Manning was on your board, too?

Luster: Yes. I was one of his students at State.

Morris: That's what I was going to ask.

Luster: Yes, in community relations. I also knew him at the Urban League, too. I was a member. I wasn'twry active,but I was very close to Mr. Donald Glover, who was the industrial secretary.

Morris : Of the Urban League?

Luster: Yes. 5. PROBLEMS OF SUCCESS

Personal Differences

Morris: Didn't Youth for Service at one point get one of the San Francisco Foundat ion awards ?

Luster: Yes, Percy Pinkney, a young man who used to be our director of streetwork, received that award.

Morris: Is he somebody that you brought into the organization?

Luster: No, Percy was there along with Carl May. He was one of the charter members, a very good young man. We had our differences about two or three years ago, and they set up the Community Streetwork Center. Now he's in the governor's office, I understand.

Morris: How about that! Were the differences a matter of people growing in different directions, or more specific things?

Luster: Partially. That was one of them. The other was some personal things that happened that I have never gone into, which I won't go into, because I thought they were quite unfortunate, and I think that the less said about it, the better it'llbe. It's a kind of thing where I hope that he will make it. I'm not vindictive, but I think that he has a lot of obstacles he's going to have to overcome. So far, he's doing fairly well, but there are some other things that he's going to have to face; eventually this will have to be done. I just hope that he's strong enough to do it, because that day is coming.

Morris: You said at the beginning that the agency reached a point where you decided that it was time for you to leave Youth for Service. Luster: Yes. About a year or so before we started the fund-raising for the building, I had a meeting with John May, and he said: Orville, you and Mr. Cahill are going to leave a bloody mess.

I said: I agree, but I'll be ready to leave at that time. Because what I wanted to do, I wanted to get off into something that would be a lot more stable and not so hectic, with so many meetings and this type of thing.

I had only wanted to stay at Youth for Service about five or six years, and then move on into something else; but as I got involved, I wanted to get the building. The code name for the building was 'the City Hall of the Ghetto.' I would go around talking about it in this way, but, actually, it was just going to be what it is now. It was something to draw attention, and this type of thing.

Morris: A symbol.

Luster: Yes, it was a symbol. It was a gimmick, kind of. So after I got involved, and I was ready to do this, then I had a few problems with some of the board members.

Time to Resign

Luster: I was ready to leave when the building was finished because I wanted to make a smooth transition into something else, but it didn't happen, because then we started having problems. It was a kind of a vicious type of thing. I wish it hadn't happened. But these are the things that do happen and I knew that this could possibly happen during the last board nomination. I didn't try to stop it because I knew I was going to leave. I thought that after I had announced that I wanted to leave, this would calm things down, and I could've left with a little honor and dignity; but some people who had held some grudges for a long time didn't see it that way, and they proceeded to make a lot of noise.

One of the most interesting things they wanted to do, and there was no basis for it--they called me to a meeting on a Saturday. This was a called meeting and they had been meeting with some of the staff, and they wanted me to leave by Monday, at five o'clock, and they'd already written up a press release. Quite a few of the board members didn't know anything about this, just a few. So I got all of them together, and we stopped that, because I had told them that I was Luster: going to resign. So then they had to back up. Then I did set a date, and I was paid off.

Morris: Is this what John meant when he said the building was going to create a bloody mess?

Luster: Oh, yes. There was a lot of jealousy. You had some of the board members who were quite frightened about where it was going. They'd never really met Mr. Cahill; he wouldn't come to a board meeting, and this type of thing. You had some business people on the board, very fine people wholve given a lot of time to the community, but with their own personal hangups, and it's really too bad. Very fine people, very bright. At one time we were quite close, and then this thing with Percy came down, and some of them were carried away by it and just felt that I had to go. I felt sad for them because I was going to leave anyway.

They all thought maybe this would've just about killed me, but it wasn't what I wanted to do in the first place. When I first came to Youth for Service it was a job, and then what I wanted to do was build a building because I saw a chance to do it. I had been warned by John May, and I knew what price I was going to have to pay.

Morris: Why should getting a building to house the program cause so much misery?

Luster: It was so much jealousy. You were getting ready to get into an envious position of almost doing this, but a lot of little things turned up. If you've ever had any dealing with boards, you will know the kinds of things--like someone wanting to be chairman twice, and being told 'no.' It was little things like this that you would never think would be harmful, but they were. Even with people who went through some personal things like I did. You would think that they could be a lot fairer.

I said I just can't be nobody's house nigger, which I couldn't be. I never will be, and I'm not going to be. I'm just not. I can respect you, and I can love you if you want to do some things, but I'm not easy to get along with. I recognize that, too. I'm quite strong-headed, quite determined. If I hadn't been, I never would have been able to get so far with the building.

Morris: I would think that a board would be pleased to. have a strong-minded doer as their executive.

Luster: Well, some things were said that got off into some other things because I was involved with parking. I was involved with some other Luster: little business deals that kind of upset some of them. bd then they stated I had a mistress, and this type of thing. So it's these kinds of things that entered into it, which I would think any of them--I've learned, since I've moved around in these circles, that there are very few people who do not have some type of skeleton in their closet.

So be it, you know? I wasn't disturbed. I mean, I am glad I got out. I've had a chance to rest. Financially, it has not been all that good, because I elected to not work for a while. I haven't worked, almost, in two yearsr-just did some part-time things. I was trying to get into this McDonald training program to get a franchise. Still working on that, and some other things, too. But I've rested. I've been able to clear up my personal life. My former wife--you might say, we've never had any unkind words for each other. My son is doing well. My daughter's doing all right, which I had problems with one time. So I feel pretty good about the whole thing.

I don't think that I would have been able to do this if I had remained at Youth for Service. Right now, I'm talking to Zeke Singleton, the chairman of the council, and I just talked to the present director yesterday, trying to help out with some things, which I'm going to do.

I feel that, in the long run, it really has helped me to get a better perspective. Some of the things that I predicted have happened. Some of the people, some of the staff that were fighting me, and some of the others, they're gone. And the program has not gotten off the ground, which I had told them; even if I had stayed there, it wouldn't. It takes time to fill one acre of space in these times. [~au~hs]

Morris: That 's valuable, then, to have had some time for contemplation and to organize your own life?

Luster: Oh, sure, sure. It hasn't been easy, because I've tied up a lot of money in real estate, which you can't get out now without taking a loss, but other than that, it's been fun. 6. REFLECTIONS ON COMMUNITY PROGRESS

Jame s Baldwin 's TV Documentary

Morris: In your contemplating and thinking have you had any thoughts as to how the city as a whole has done in these fifteen years? What kind of a grade would you give them on minority relations?

Luster: Very poor. There's a movie that I wish you could get a chance to see. It's entitled Take This Hammer. I took--[snaps fingers] what's his name, the black writer? James Baldwin--in 1962 or '63 I took him through the national educational broadcasting system; I was a guide for James Baldwin throughout San Francisco.

In the film, the dialogue talks about some of the things that happened with some of the youth out there and adults and everything else. It's a forty-five minute documentary and he explains a lot of things. They wouldn't show it in San Francisco, although it was made here. The first place to show it was Boston, then New York, then San Francisco.

About nine years later we talked about the film in relation to that particular year, 1972. There were three people: the young man who was the program director for the movie (he was then program director of the station), the young black gal who was handling some of the script ( she's in charge of Rainbow Sign, over in ~erkeley), and myself. So we all sat down, and we looked at the movie on TV, and then we made comments about what had happened.

Morris: They didn't show it on TV in the Bay Area until 1972?

Luster: No, they showed it about '64, but then, nine years later, after they'd shown it, we went back and showed it again. Morris: On Channel g?

Luster: On Channel 9. So if you could get that," it would be quite interesting because then you could see what we all said about it.

I would think that the only thing that 's happened in San Francisco, as far as I'm concerned,is that, when you really look at it, in all this period of time, out of all these small, little agencies, Youth For Service is the only one that has a real nice building. The rest--like the Mission Rebels here, they have this [former synagogue on Geary Boulevard at Fillmore street]. They have their food program. There has been some progress, but not to the extent that you would really think with the amount of money that was spent.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs

Luster: Now, what was happening--I tried many, many times to get the poverty people to team up with some of the private agencies--

Morris: This is the federal economic opportunity people?

Luster: Yes, to have an 'in-and-out program,' to make sure that some of these people who were getting into the poverty program would do like we had done at Youth for Service--give them time to go back to school and then get into some kind of civil service job or within the private sector. No one could see this. So, as a result, when all the cutbacks have come up, none of these people are in any situation where they can do any good.

Morris: They can't transfer to other kinds of jobs. I remember thinking that that was one of the ideas that ought to happen and would likely happen.

Luster: That's what I thought, too. So you find that the Human Rights Commission has done this a little bit, and some of the others, but mostly, people were just given a desk, given a job--'keep your mouth shut'--and they were not pushed to do anything. So as a result, the

"KQED, San Francicco public television station, has donated to The Bancrof't Library a transcript of the sound track, which is in the Foundation Series papers. Luster : same youth who were out there looking for jobs are now adults, and they're still looking for jobs. Some have been helped, but now they've cut off the poverty money, that's it, and they haven't survived. I know, myself, if I hadn't made plans I never would have been able to stay off this long a time and not work, only in part- time, sometimes.

Morris : When the federal anti-poverty organization was beginning, did they come out at all and talk with the agency people,like yourself, who were already working with minorities?

Luster: No, no. You got guidelines from Washington. Wait'll you go back to Washington. It's very interesting. You go in and talk to some of the 'think tank' people, and the way they dream up these programs in Washington--they have so much money to spend. They do send some of their field people out, but--

Morris : Didn't they have a regional office here in San Francisco?

Luster : Yes, but in the begining they only had one man trying to serve the whole region, and they were borrowing secretaries from here and there. It was a very frustrating situation. I think by the time that the poverty program was really beginning to exert some real expertise in certain fields, then they sort of disbanded. A lot of people who were there--because of all the pressures, if they could get off into something else, they did. If they could get a higher rank and go into something that was permanent, they did.

Morris : So some people did do that.

Luster : Yes, but mostly on a higher level--those who were already able to do things, not the people who did not have--

Morris : The community worker kind of people.

Black Capitalism

Luster: We even tried to get more people involved with the unions. I made a great effort to do this, and we still have some involved, and this sort of disturbs some of our board members; but I told a lot of our youth that getting into some of the trades was one of the best things they could do. Luster: Akland Thiebaut, now, who used to be a streetworker on my staff, is the director of an ageney himself now. So, now, we have gotten quite a few people into trades.

Morris: That may be a long-range accomplishment.

Luster: I think that some of that will be done, but we're a long ways off as far as the unions are concerned, and as far as any business. I think that black capitalism is black suicide. The black protest is a lot of black noise, unless you have someone listening. And that's all it is.

Morris: Why is black capitalism black suicide? I thought business success was the great American dream.

Luster: Since 1969--I was reading last night about how the government wanted to help the blacks take over their communities and have small businesses. But when you have one quarter, and another person has a quarter, and you rub it together, what are you going to get? If you don't have a genie lamp or something, you can't turn it into gold. You still have fifty cents. And, like everything else in our inner cities, even the large companies can't make it. They've gone to suburbia because it's where the people are, and the ones who work here don't live here. So there is no black capitalism, only in words, just like the word 'black power.' There was no black power--a lot of black noise.

Morris: The San Francisco Foundation made a couple of grants to--I think it was called the Local Development Corporation.

Luster: Yes, PAC. I'm going over to see them later on today. But a survey came out the other day: most of the businesses in America that are black today make about $37,000 a year, gross, or a little less, average-wise. And our insurance companies, one of the largest we have, only has about one hundred or two hundred million dollars. That's no money. In other words, General Electric, just one company-- no, its subsidiary, Western Electric, owns more wealth than all the minority businesses in the country.

Morris: What about this group that's beermeeting the last couple of years or so--some of the leading white businessmen and a group of young people from the minority groups?

Luster : Oh, yes, the Rockefeller thing?

Morris: Right, Resource Exchange. Luster: Oh, yes, that's nice, but they're talking. Ain't no one's getting any money. In other words, when you can't get into railroads, you can't get into steel, you can't get into oil--the best thing we have going for us is some franchises, a little bit. You have some joint ventures, but when you start talking about a man with money--like we hold up Motown Records: got forty million dollars. We hold up Johnson's Publication, which is nice, nothing wrong with that. We hold up some of the others who are doing fairly well, but that's no money. We have individuals, but the minority is a long ways off from really getting into the mainstream of the economy.

Morris: Of controlling any good-sized chunk of resources.

Luster: We have a lot of land in the South that's worth a lot of money, but we haven't been able to develop it. A good example: when your oil companies will do what they have done to some of the white independents, you don't know what they're going to do with minorities, uh-uh, man.

There's an interesting book out called The American, Inc., and I think what we're going to see in the next ten, twenty years, maybe sooner than that--about three hundred large companies throughout the world will control the world economy. I think the oil international is a good example.

Morris: You think that's the opening round?

Luster: Oh, yes. I think you will find one company, like Beatrice Foods, out of Chicago, that controls billions of dollars in all kinds of small companies, you know, like Safeway Stores and some of the rest; and as a result, Mom and Pop stores--you can't have no Mom and Pop. You can't even serve hamburgers any more. You can't compete with McDonald's, fast foods, and this type of thing.

I think that unless you become a manager, or unless you become a joint venture with some of these giants, I think you can almost forget about the whole idea of black capitalism. There's never been any. It ' s just a word. It ' s just like 'black power. ' Sure, you had a lot of people running around with a lot of rhetoric, talking, screaming and hollering and all this kind of stuff.

To give you an example, there's not one black community that owns a tank. There's not even a gun shop, a gunsmith, in any black community. So, now, how are you going to really control anything? You don't even have a used tank, to say nothing of a new one. [Laughter1

Morris: Yes, that 's the global, political thing. I was thinking also in terms of daily life. Luster: Well, I'm just saying, if you're going to take over something--. Up until two or three years ago, we only 'had one general. We have an admiral now. A long time ago, we didn't even have any mayors. We have a few mayors now. And there was no chief of police, beyond some assistant chiefs, and now we do have a few chiefs, a few sheriffs.

You're talking about how you're going to control something, but what are you going to control with? So you have a lot of people out and Mau-Mauing going on. But take the Muslims, right here on the street, on the corner here. Say, for instance, that you decide to cut their water off--what can they do about that?

Say, for instance, that the pharmaceutical companies decided they didn't want to give any more pills to the doctors, and they're pretty independent. Then they have to be out there grubbing for herbs, just like a medicine man. So, really, when you come right down to it, what power do you have? Black or white? You're a very powerless people, when it comes down to real problems. You have power protests, moral judgment, and all this kind of stuff, but that's--you're very foolish.

Future of Social Responsibility

Luster: I'm looking down the barrel of the atomic bomb. You might have been looking down the barrel of a cannon or something like that before, but you could be destroyed now pretty easily. I don't think, the way things are going now, that the businessman is ever going to turn back now. He's desperate. And the way that he has squeezed this country, I just don't think that we--we have some that want to do something about social responsibility, but I don't think they really can stop now.

Morris: How about philanthropic foundations? Their money primarily comes from businessmen who have made it, and their boards are made up of civic leaders, including some minority individuals in the Bay Area. Do they have much say or influence in this overall scene of how a community runs?

Luster: I don't think so. I think that even your politicians--like, in San Francisco now, there are many power blocs that used to have and still have some power. There are some decision-makers and power-makers in our city, and once you can get to them, you can move some things; but a lot of people in San Francisco who used to have a lot of interest in San Francisco have interests world-wide now, and they're not in town enough to really be concerned too much about it. Luster: I think that, eventually, San Francisco is going to end up being a tourist town and headquarters for a lot of white-collar businesses, and that's it. You'll have a few poor people here, but pretty soon even the whites, the general population--if you don't have a certain amount of money, you're not going to be able to live in San Francisco Redevelopment in this area is a good example. What's going to happen to South of Market?

Morris: We're going to have a convention center.

Luster: That 's right.

Morris : Rather than housing.

Luster: That's right. So I would think that you're going to have to live in suburbia or someplace else.

Morris: Do the young organizations, like Youth for Service, represent a new grassroots movement to counterbalance the world politics?

Luster: It can and it can't. It's going to take a long time to develop some of the leadership they have there now, even though some of the board thinks that they have it now. You have to become a real maverick, and it's not good because it just isn't going to work right.

There are not any loose funds around. Even the foundations now are being very careful about who they fund--a lot more so. They are thinking about one year, two years, three years, five years, and this kind of thing, and they are giving funds to the institutions, which they didn't do a lot of times. Just like the Oakes Foundation-- that was the first time they'd ever given a million dollars to an institution--

Morris: In a single grant, to UC Santa Cruz.

Luster: That's right. Herman Blake is a good salesman, and he'll do a good job .

Morris: There's a black man in a position of authority.

Luster: Well, Herman now has mellowed. I never will forget the first Speak Out that he was at. He had a big fight with the police department. We had to stop the afternoon session because of some of his comments.

Morris: What was the Speak Out? Luster: Well, we had a Speak Out about police relations and other community relations and youth at Youth for Service, and we had Herman there as one of the moderators of one of the groups.

But I think that Herman has mellowed with the years. He had to. I mean, what he's doing now is going to be able to influence a lot more young people. It's going to be in a limited way, but a very positive way, too. But as far as really doing anything about the economic situation, there isn't going to be much change.

There'll be a few little things, but really getting into becoming a part of the real capitalist world, no. We'll be managers, we'll have small businesses that could be, maybe, a comfortable living, but no big thing. I don't see that form, and I don't ever hardly see it. It's sad to say, but it's true.

And it's not just not for blacks. It's not for a whole lot of other people. If you are not part of that group that's going to have that money--you can do it through rock and roll, and that kind of thing, but really being part of that real big money that just stays and stays and grows and grows, it just isn't going to happen. It doesn't happen to too many people, let alone blacks.

Morris: Yes, most of us are in that boat.

Luster: So 'black capitalism' is just a word. It's a figure of speech. It '11 never be. You see where the other day George Meany was talking about how we ought to nationalize the oil companies?

Morris: That doesn't sound like George Meany.

Luster: I don't know, but he's tired, too. He's mellowed after seventy-two years of fighting it; he's smoking good cigars and making what--a hundred some thousand dollars a year, living good, and so forth. He realizes that he's not going to be able to fight it.

Morris: I've heard that union managements control some fairly hefty sums of money that some people consider in the same quantity as the capitalists' .

Luster: Oh, yes, pension funds and banks. It is big business. There's no secret about that. It's big business.

Morris: And a generation ago, here in San Francisco, there were bloody battles about whether or not the unions could organize.

Luster: We have what they call the Wheelchair Brigade on the executive council of the AFL-CIO now. 7. PERSONAL CONCLUSIONS

Working Within the System in Small Ways

Luster: One of the most interesting people I've ever met in my life--he had a lot of influence on me--was Dr. Howard Thurman. I had a meeting with him here about a month or so ago. We spent two-and-a-half hours together, and he's getting up in age and everything. I think that what an individual has to do, and I'm very happy I had this opportunity to do this--I was able to work in a very small area, very narrow, and accomplish a few little things and influence a few people.

[~ewtape starts]

Morris: You were saying that Dr. Thurman was telling you--?

Luster: I'm saying that I've been influenced by his books, his writings, by his sermons. In fact, he was one of the people who recommended me to the Quakers. What I've learned from this man's life, and talking to him, is that he was able, in all of this turmoil and all the years he's worked in human relations and community relations and within the church, to carve out a small area in which he worked. He worked very diligently, and he worked with all kinds of people.

I was born in Oklahoma, and I was raised in a small city (~klahomaCity is small compared to other cities) ; and we had an interracial church there, and I went to Sunday School there. So, naturally, when I cane to San Francisco, I was fascinated by this new idea of a new church that Dr. Thurman had started at Fellowship Church. I think that what he was able to do as a minister and a man of God was to really live in what I call 'the Community of God,' where there was action, where there was love, there was no hate. Luster: In some of his books, like Jesus was Disinherited, Deep River, you get a lot of feeling, and in some of the sermons. I remember one, called 'Your Life's-working Paper,' where he talks about your liabilities and your assets, which you actually look at, and you look at your inner self and all these other things. And then, there's another series of sermons entitled 'Jesus and Other Great Religious Teachers,' and there we go through Ghandi, St. Thomas Aquinas and some of the others.

This man has lived his life in a very simple way, but he wanted to do something different within the church, and he was able to do it by working within the system, and he was kot filled with hate. . He was not angry to the point that he lost his balance. He set goals for himself, and he reached them. !Then he was able to sort of walk away and let the church do what it's trying to do now. It hasn't been too successful because he was a driving force, but I don't think that this man has ever lost his touch for his fellow man and his feeling and all this. That I have really appreciated in knowing him, because I hope that when I move on, or when I die, there's one chapter of Job that I always like to think about. I think it's the forty-second chapter, seventeenth verse of the Book of Job.

It said, "Job died aged and full of days." I think that this is something that I hope that I can say to myself, and no one else. I'm not trying to impress anybody else. This is one thing I like about Howard. He has always been willing to work and live with others, but he does not try to influence you, no more than through his writing and his actions and so forth.

He's a very powerful man. John May thinks a lot of him, so does Ruth..-But 1 feel that this man has made a great contribution to society, in just a very small area, and is important. And no one, regardless of whether they like him or love him--and he does have his enemies and his friends and all this, which he's fought all these many, many years, in the South and here on the West Coast and everything else; but he's been able to stand up there and still do his thing, regardless of circumstances. I think that was very important, in just a small, little area. Our church only had about 325 members, at the most, but I think it made a tremendous impact on San Francisco; and he's still talking, even at his age. So I think that this is what's important.

Morris: That's a beautiful story. He sounds like a very fine man'.

Luster: He is. You can ask Ruth about him. Some of his poems and his books are just beautiful. Jack Irvine was a good friend of his. Morris: Your collaborator on the book?

Luster: Yes. They were real close friends, and also they were founders of the Fellowship Church, charter members. So itls good. I must say, the man has been good to me. He's been quite a man.

Morris: You said you feel he's had a great influence on San Francisco. Is this by setting an example to people like yourself?

Luster: Oh, yes, I feel. And within the church. In a very limited way. He never did try to go out into the community and organize and thTs kind of stuff, but if you came to the church and listened to his readings and that type of thing--. I think this is one of the things that will happen to Youth for Service one of these days--that we will find a person now who has ability, who will now come and put a program together, because he doesnlt have to worry about where he's going to live, where he's going to house his ideas, and he doesnlt have to worry about paying any taxes, paying rent. It's just maintenance. I think in time that we'll have one, but not right away.

Morris: That person will come?

Luster: Yes.

Morris : Amen.

Satisfactions and Concerns, 1975

Morris: We've come to the end of your cigar. You've heen very generous to give me this much time to explain what you think. You've done quite a lot yourself in this town.

Luster: Orville Luster didn't do very much. Orville Luster was just the vehicle in which a lot of things were done. I was just sort of a convener. I had a lot of help. You would have to go back and talk about the Howard Thurmans. You would have to talk about people in labor and business. I could go on and name a long list of people, with the Quakers and even a lot of the kids and some of my volunteers. They all had an influence and a contribution to make. I was just there, and I wish that I could say; Well, Orville, you did all this by yourself. Luster: No, I had a lot of help, financially, spiritually, intellectually, of inputs from individuals. Even the media was nice to us. I could talk about guys like Abe Mellinkoff, Ed Cook, people at the TV stations and the radio stations.

This is something that, also, we talk about a little bit in the book--that you can't do it by yourself. It would be nice. Nor can you take the credit. I used to always tell people that came in with some of the awards--I'd say: Well, a lot of people participated in that. And I said: Now, when I leave, the only power you have will be the power of persuasion. And I said: Now, you can't take any of that to the bank; the bankers never do look at those awards as collateral.

It's nice if it happens. It'd be good. [~au~hs]But it just doesn't happen. You know, you still have to pay the bills.

Morris: Isn't it those people working together and some few people who can get'-themworking together that is the way the community functions?

Luster: Well, yes. I agree with you on that. I'm a little disappointed with some of the things that are happening now, because it's just repeating itself. There's a meeting coming up today at about three o'clock where it's the same old hustle--people trying to hustle off of others--and it's bad, a lot of it.

Morris: Well, I hope that man comes along pretty soon for Youth for Service. It might be a woman in this day and age. What do you think?

Luster: I wouldn't doubt it. I just hope that they come along. But the young man who's working now--don't get me wrong. He's a very bright young man and he's trying to do a good job, and I think he will.

The biggest problem we have now is: are we going to find young people who do not have to go through some of the things that some of us went through fourteen, fifteen years ago, and put up with all those things? Can they bhild on what we've learned, and are they going to make that type of sacrifice and commitment?

This is what is more important than anything else--not only having the ability to do the job, but are you committed and willing to make the sacrifice? Are you committed to doing it?

I think this is what you've found within the Quakers and also found within Howard Thurman--that real ([raps desk for emphasis] dedication and commitment to his ideals of love, focused upon the limited community. And the limited community has to be that Luster: community you're willing to work with, that's a part of the larger community that is vicious and everything else; but it's going to have to be done. It's going to have to be done.

Morris: You state the case very well.

Luster: [~aughs1

Morris: You really do. I thank you very much, and I shall read the book with interest.

Note on Neighborhood Parks

Luster: Before you go, I'm going to show you something, if you have time. We didn't talk about it today, but it 's in the book.

We started getting involved in ecology way back in 1961. We started building parks. We got one in called the Big Double-0, right next to the Point.

Morris: Qut at Hunter's Point?

Luster: Yes. If you have a minute, I'd like to show you some parks that we built right here in the city. My car's parked outside and I can drop you at the rapid transit back to Berkeley.

Morris: I'd like that.

Luster: It was quite interesting how that happened.

h he following summary is from notes made while inspecting several of the vestpocket parks built by Youth for Service. Ed.]

Luster: The first one we built was right beside the Richmond police station. We wanted to help our youth learn some work skills and also to get involved in things that they could succeed at, so they could feel good about themselves, and to do something for others so people wouldn't think of them as some kind of bums and bad guys. There were some empty lots around town, so we tho.ught we'd clean 'em up and make some places for kids to play.

As I say, the first one we did was next to the Richmond police station. It took us a whole year just to work out the agreements to get to use this land, which was just sitting there covered with Luster: trash, but nobody was sure which city department it belonged to or whether they wanted us to use it, even to make it look better. Then, it took a lot more doing before the neighbors and the police stopped wnying about all our youth while they were working there clearing out and fixing up that lot.

In fact, the police department insisted that we carry a million dollars worth of liability insurance for the three years we actually had youth working there. But by the end of that time, we even had some of the neighbors coming aver to lend a hand and bringing food for bur boys. And now there isn't even a sign on the park that it was built as a Youth for Service project.

There are still Youth for Service young men building parks in San Francisco. They're now ork king on Redevelopment Agency land in the Western Addition, which was kind of tricky because they kept saying they might be building on this lot or that lot pretty soon. So we worked that one out by planting trees and everything in pots, so these little parks can be dismantled in a day and moved somewhere else. With all the unemployment in this part of town, we didn't want any beefs about taking away paying jobs, so the Youth for Service people work with the laborers local. The union secretary is now on the Youth for Service board.

[~ndof Interview]

Interviewer-Editor : Gabrielle Morris Transcriber: Bob McCargar Final Typist: Judy Johnson The Bancroft Library University of California/Berkeley Regional Oral History Office

Bay Area Foundation History Series Volume IV

Obie Benz and Peter Stern

A NEW GENERATION OF GRANT-MAKING IDEAS

An Interview Conducted by Gabrielle Morris

@ 1976 by The Regents of the University of California TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Obie Benz and Peter Stern

INTERVIEN HISTORY

1. ORIGINS OF THE VANGUARD FOUNDATION Personal Commitment to Social Good Advice and Contacts Fund-Raising and Payout Board Involvement with Community Groups

2. SMALL GRANTS WITH LARGE IMPACT Internal Revenue Service Rulings on Tax Exemption Standing Behind Your Grants Board Decision-Making

3. OBSE3VATIONS OF THE FOUNDATION COMMUNITY Fellow Boat -Rockers Larger Foundations Some Aspects of the Youth Movement

4. EVALUATING THE FIRST THREE YEARSt WORK Education and Leverage Grant Results Contacts Beyond the Bay Area Federal Granting

5. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: VANGUARD, GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS

INDEX INTFRVIEW HISTORY

Obie Benz and Peter Stern were interviewed for the Bay Area Foundation History project in order to record the views of two practitioners of what might be called the participatory philanthropy evolving in the 1970s. Informal and intelligent and under thirty, they met with the interviewer on 1May 1975 in their cluttered office above a shop in an outlying area of San Francisco to talk about the Vanguard Foundation which they founded and operate.

Although shy about himself, Benz is most articulate in describing Vanguard as one of a number of small foundations across the country, put together by sons and daughters of the wealthy to respond to the concerns of the civil rights and youth movements of the 1960s. Displaying smooth teamwork, Stern adds specific details about how the group evaluates proposals and concerns they have about grant-making policies.

Simply, what they have done is to pool portions of their own inheritances and convinced others to contribute annual gifts to their foundation. These funds are then distributed to young social action organizations, which the Vanguard group themselves meet with and appraise. Their concern is with working within the existing economic and political system, to strengthen it by broadening representation, and thereby participation, in ma;king and implementing public policy. They have found regulatory officials cooperative and flexible in discussing permissible boundaries of foundation activity. Perhaps because of the familiarity and friendship with men and women in all walks of life gained through their grant-making activities, sharing of leadership and power in the future seems to hold few fears for them.

Their energy and initiative have caught the fancy of the press, which frequently selects Vanguard as the news angle when reporting on foundation affairs. Vanguard has also been accepted with respect and affection by most of the Bay Area foundation community. It is possible that their casual manner plus their energy and determination have gained acceptance for social concerns that older foundations have been seeking for years.

Both men reviewed the rough-edited transcript of the interview. Each made a few revisions, thoughtfully using different colored pens for identification.

Interviewer-Edit or

22 June 1976 Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley ÿÿ ate of Interview: 1May 19751

1. ORIGINS OF THE VANGUARD FOUNDATION

Personal Commitment to .Social 'Good

Morris: The purpose of an oral history interview like this is to record your point of view, rather than an adversary debate. We are curious, rather than argumentative.

Benz: Okay, Good.

Morris: One of the reasons that we came to Vanguard on this study of the development of foundations is that you've probably had more press coverage than most foundations. Most of it has been about the fact that Vanguard was started by a group of people in their twenties, with private means. Would you tell me a 'little bit about the how and why?

Benz: Howandwhywegot together?

Morris: How and why you got together. (you're Obie Benz, so we can identify your voice on the tape. )

Benz: Okay. I'm Obie Benz. I had been active in the anti-war movement when I was in college, and out of that developed what I consider to be a personal principle for myself that I wanted to try and manifest whatever potential I had, to do what I considered to be important, good, or socially useful. Before I was 21, that also included having a good bit of inherited money. So I thought it was my responsibility as an individual with money to use that money to promote social good somehow.

I came out here to San Francisco, through a long series of coincidences became connected with a group of other people who had also inherited money, and we joined together to mutually give it away. Benz : We decided that we wanted to support groups that weren't being supported in any other way, that weren't being supported by either our families' philanthropies or the philanthropies of traditional foundations. So we decided to f'und women's rights groups, prison reform groups, and basically anyone who was either too controversial or too risky to get support from the larger funding sources.

Morris : Had you known some of these other people in the founding group in college?

Benz : I hadn't. I think Peter had.

Stern: Yes.

Morris : You're Peter Stern.

Stern: Right. I came along about six, eight months after Obie set up the original network.* I had just graduated from college when I started working with the group, and I've been at it ever since. We're about three and a half years old now. Obie's been working that whole length of time. I've been working about three years.

The person who originally identified all the people I had known- he was two years older--

Benz : I wouldn't say his name.

Stern: Right. He was two years older than I was, and he had grown up here in town. We went to the same school and both came from well-to-do families. A number of the people on the list I had known growing up here.

Morris : Did you grow up in the Bay Area?

Stern: Yes.

Morris: And where did you go to school?

*In addition to Obie Benz and Peter Stern, Vanguard's 1974 annual report lists the following members: Joe Belden, Dale Djerassi, Bob Friedman, Doug Goldman, Cynthia Guyer, Annie Hess, Sukey Lilienthal, Daisy Paradis, Courtney Price, Maggie Roth, Christine Russell, and Carl Stern, Jr. Stern: I went to Town School, which is a private school pretty near here, for the first nine years, and then I went to a prep school down in L.A.

I guess only about three or four of the original people are still active in the Foundation. A lot of the people didn't initially join up. It wasn't their interest at that time.

Advice and Contacts

Morris: You mentioned that you've had some contact--amongst the group--with foundations that your families set up. Did you, as individuals, talk with your parents about their ideas of philanthropy and what they thought a family foundation could do?

Benz: Some of us had--I personally didn't--but in the beginning, when I was setting this up, I went to a whole range of different people who were involved, or might be involved, in philanthropy in one way or another here in town.

We talked to the directors of the San Francisco Foundation, Rosenberg, Zellerbach, just about everybody who was officially in philanthropy. We talked to lawyers about how to set up the actual structure, and a whole range of community groups to ask them what they thought were areas that weren't being covered by anybody else.

I think it needs to be said that I'm not from this area, and neither my parents nor family are involved in these kinds of things. I really more or less relied on nonfamily assistance.

Morris: What kinds of advice did they give you--the people in the other foundations and the attorneys?

Benz: It was a whole range. It was interesting because, basically, I was going around saying: We're thinking of starting a new foundation. We have some time. What do you think's wrong with foundations as they're set up now?

The community groups were particularly strong that foundations are excessively bureaucratic and excessively closed to new ideas or new people who haven't been sent to them by someone they already know. So there's a kind of a network of funding sources and funding seekers who in some--well, how would you say--

Stern: It's closed. Benz : Yes, a closed circle.

Morris: Closed circles, rather than a network, in the sense of reaching out?

Stern: Or rather than being open to different kinds of ideas that are talking more about how to change things for the better, rather than slapping band-aids on specific, sortof symptomatic problems that arise.

Benz: So there were individuals who were trying to break into the philanthropic world--in other words, trying to get money from foundations-- who were almost entirely ignored. Part of the reason was that they didn't have the people to contact.

Foundations executives assume that they are open to those people, but I think that they'd have to admit that it's harder when you don't know or don't have the contact. But also because these grant seekers were doing things that were controversial enough that the members of the more traditional foundations would shy away, either because of a genuine political belief on their part that this group was doing something that was too controversial for them, or because they thought that it would reflect on the foundation's reputation.

Morris: Can you think of a couple of examples, without necessarily mentioning names, of kinds of groups who felt that they were getting turned down by traditional foundations because they were too controversial?

Stern: One group that we help support is San Francisco Consumer Action, which is a very hard-hitting, good consumer advocacy group. We supported a banking study, where they went around to all the different banks and did a comparative survey of different services and different rates charged for those services, and they felt--I don't know if this is really true or not, but they felt that the next yew, when they went back to the San Francisco Foundation, which has a few bankers on the Distribution Committee, that that was the covert reason why they were not funded.

Morris: When they went for--

Stern: For general support, right.

Benz: And second %ding.

Stern: That's one example. Another example that we're currentlylooking at is a police practices project, which is trying to get police to be publicly accountable and to spell out a body of rules for themselves, standards by which individual cases can be judged. Sometimes that has gotten them into lawsuits against the police. I think because of Stern: that particular aspect of their program, more traditional foundations have been unwilling to touch it because it does involve suing the police department in certain cases.

Benz: And then you have the situation where the boards of directors of these foundations are in the same clubs as the people who are being sued or are on the boards of other organizations or are just cocktail party friends, and they don't want to be involved in situations where they're supporting challenges to their friends.

Stern: Incidentally, we do, on an ongoing basis, sort of solicit advice from other foundations and from other individual philanthropists. I think it was always an emphasis of Obie's to stay in touch with other people trying to do social good with money and to exchange perspectives.

Fund-raising and Payout

Stern: Complementary to that, we do fund-raise from older, liberal people who have money in the community, starting off with friends of parents, I guess, and then it sort of spread out f'rom there--in fact, some people who aren't in this community that Obie knows back East. Outside donors supplied a little less than twenty percent of our funds 1ast year.

Morris: That's a good percentage. I take it, then, that you have a number of silent partners, you might call them.

Stern: Oh, yes.

Morris: My question on the funding: are you looking to develop a body of capital on an ongoing basis, or is it more a revolving fund?

Stern: We basically have the principle of giving it all away, raising it each year and giving it all away. Last year we raised about $130,000, which is much more than we expected we would. Also, most of it comes in in December, and so a lot of that ties over into the next year. Basically, we're spending at the level of what we raised the previous year. So this year we will spend in the neighborhood of $130,000. The principle is to pay it all out, not to develop an endowment.

Benz : There's a certain extent to which endowment is--I mean, it's a security which perpetuates a permanent institution, and I think that it's necessary to have there be stability in outgoing finds for groups that need it, and certainly nongovernmental kind of finding. Benz: I mean, our feeling is that, although the government is always going to be stable, it's very unresponsive to the whole range of social current s . I also think that it's important to not be afraid to give out of the capital or the endowment of a foundation. I mean, there are certain times--like in the mid-sixties, with racial problems and the whole civil rights movement, where the social issues were so important at that particular time--that I don't think you could rest on the four or six percent payout requirement.

I mean, in a certain sense, I think foundations should have seen themselves as funding not only what was going on that year, but all the grants they didn't make in the previous twenty years to civil rights groups, which they should have made. So instead of giving away six percent, they could have given away--say , in the grant for '65, they could give away for '65 and '64. Then they'd give away for '66 and '63 and '67 and '62, because they should have been fbnding that much money all those previous years.

Morris: I see.

Benz: And I think there are certain kinds of social problems, and environmental problems as well, which--well, environmental problems which are irrevocable. I mean, you've got certain areas that are being destroyed now, and your six percent is going to be worth nothing in ten years because it'll already be destroyed.

The same with social problems. There's a certain pace that has to be kept up. I think there have been significant strides made in the whole range of social problems and that should continue to be accelerated now.

Morris: How much time do you as a group put into the fund-raising, which you're then going to grant?

Stern: It's hard to say, exactly. We spend a good bit of time on it. It's not constant throughout the year. We're just about to get into that period again.. A fair amount, because we first of all write a letter and then go to see the people and explain what we've been up to and make a personal appeal. It's hard to say. A good portion of our time.

Morris: Would that about balance out with the kind of time that another foundation puts into managing its investments and its portfolio?

Benz: [~au~hs]I bet. I bet it would. It's hard to-- Stern: It's hard to say. That's an interesting question.

Morris: Do you go back to the same group of people each year, or are you--?

Stern: Yes, but expanding each year, too. New names each year.

Morris: Did you have any clues as to why you had more success last year than you expected? That's a really remarkable accomplishment, to raise more money than you expected [laughs].

Benz: We've been very careful, for one thing, and been very conscientious about how we do things, and try to keep people in touch with what we are doing. Secondly, I think that we are much more closely in tune with current social problems than many of the other foundations, or certainly the individuals who look at what we do. The kinds of things that we fund are much more in the media. I mean, the kind of thing that other foundations can't--problems with women's rights; it's incredible that there are still so few foundations that are open to women's rights, or who are becoming open to women's rights grants. I mean, women, who are fifty percent of the population--there have been clear, well-demonstrated, well-documented examples of whole ranges of sex discrimination, yet there's very little foundation finds used for that.

Board Involvement with'Conrmunity'Groups

Morris: You've covered a number of things here. You said you were already in touch with a lot of things going on in the community and groups that felt they weren't being successful in getting finding. How did you go about the transfer from being aware of those groups to the community to saying: All right. Here we are, open for business to make grants.

Benz: That was primarily the initial groundwork that I set up. .I just went around and talked to groups, like a whole variety of prison groups and women's groups and third world groups, and just said: We're thinking of setting up a new foundation; so what do you think we should do? Could you send us applications?

Naturally, all of them did. We f'unded some of them, and we didn't fund others. But the word spread very, very quickly about what we were doing. Benz: I guess in the same sense that there's a closed circle of most foundations and foundations' funding, the groups that are promoting social change also generally know about each other and get along with each other. Right now, I think that we've become quite well known through the Bay Area.

Morris: Primarily you focus on the Bay Area?

Stern: That's our grant limitations--the greater Bay Area, by which is meant as far north as Santa Rosa, as far south as Santa Cruz.

Benz: We figured that one thing that we wanted to do, in order to make ourselves less bureaucratic,wa~to meet directly and as closely as we could with applicants in their own situations, not have them come to our offices. It'd be pretty difficult, if not impossible, for us to go great distances to interview people.

Another thing that we're trying to do within our board is--our board, who are also among our donors, are entirely young, wealthy people, and we expect that many of them will come to the interviews, rather than act in the traditional staff-board split, where the staff interviews applicants, reports to the board, and the board decides on the basis of a staff recommendation. I mean, our board is our staff, for one thing. The three of us working in the office are on the board. We also try and get as many other members as we can to come to interviews, and sometimes that's seven or eight. That's kind of an educational process for them--

Morris: In other words, seven or eight of you will go up to Santa Rosa and meet with a community group up there?

Stern: Mostly they're in the Bay Area.

Benz: But we did go up to Santa Rosa--there was a chicano bilingual radio station that was one of the first groups that we funded. I think six of us drove up there to talk to them. That's the kind of education that our board gets that few of the people on more traditional foundation boards are ever going to get because they're well-established in their life style. They're very busy people. They don't have a lot of time. They practically never see the outcome, unless it's a grant to the symphony or the opera, in which case they're fans. It really is the kind of situation which doesn't lend itself to their growing and learning about different kinds of social concerns from what they're used to. Stern: I think it's a really valuable part of our way of doing things. It's very important that the board is making decisions based on their own personal contact with the group, rather than having it screened through the biases of two or three staff people. Also, I think it sets up a better tone between us and the project people, of a more equal exchange, in that the project people can really see who is making the decisions and have some human contact with us. I think that 's very important. 2. SMALL GRANTS WITH LARGE IMPACT

Internal Revenue Service Rulings on Tax Exemption

Morris: Is the same thing true in the kinds of groups that you find---that they often have a very open relationship between staff and board?

Benz: You mean the groups that we fund have a relationship between their staff and their board?

Morris: Well, and not much distinction between.

Benz : Yes. Most of them are very small social change projects whose budgets are about--well, two to twenty-five thousand dollars a year, and they're not nearly as bureaucratized as the kind of--well, what traditional foundations have considered more established groups. I mean, frequently they don't even have boards. Some of them, in fact, aren't even tax-exempt.

Morris: How do you cope with that? That's a knotty problem these days, isn't it?

Benz : Well, the '69 Tax Act says that tax-exempt foundations can fund two kinds of projects--one, projects that do have tax-exempt statuses, or, two, projects that don't have the official legal status from the IRS, but would qualify if they did apply.

Stern: In other words, they have tax-exempt purposes, educational--

Morris: They would qualify if they did apply. That's a marvelous way to put it--very ingenious.

Stern: That's such an important point. That's a pet peeve of mine. Clearly, foundations can do that; as long as the purpose is tax-exempt, as long Stern: as it's not a profit-making operation, not influencing legislation, et cetera, we can fund it, but so much of what foundations could possibly do seems to be really hamstrung by conservative lawyers who are not willing to interpret the law up to the full extent of what you can do. It looks as if most foundation lawyers give their foundations the advice that if applicants don't have the certified tax exemption from the IRS, then you can't fund it. And it's just not true.

Benz : There are so many really good groups that are responding to direct needs of real people in entirely charitable ways that just don't have the money or the time or the energy to apply to the Internal Revenue Service in Washington for tax-exempt status. I don't think there's any reason that we should make them jump through that hoop.

Stern: It does cost.

Benz : We were audited by the Internal Revenue Service for our first year, and about a third of our grants were to groups that did not have tax- exempt statuses from the IRS, and we passed.

Morris : The IRS auditors agreed with you that these applications would qualify?

Benz : Yes. The IRS lawyers said: Look, this group doesn't have exempt status.

We said: Yes, but they're doing this. And we explained and we showed all the documents.

They said: Okay, fine. And they left. It's not a big deal. But the big foundations act like they are scared of doing something like that, that they'll just ignore things out of hand on that basis.

Morris: There's another category, called expenditure responsibility. Is that different?

Stern: Well, if you're making a grant to something that's qualified as a public charity, with a special 509a status, then the public charity has the expenditure responsibility, the foundation making the grant does not. The grantee is responsible for seeing to it that the money is spent for what the grant specifies, and the actual accounting reports.

In that way it is possible for someone else to assume the expenditure responsibility for a new small project that doesn't have a real organization or exempt status; it's similar to the area of an established agency sponsoring some new group. In other words, a Stern: project often tries to get a public charity to sponsor them, and be the fiscal agent for that project. Then the public charity can receive money for the project and accept expenditure responsibility for it, and that's advantageous from the point of view of the private foundations that are making the grants.

It does seem that the major foundations are very wary of making grants to sponsoring organizations. It's often called conduiting. It's perfectly legal if the public charity declares in writing that its board has decided to sponsor the project; yet many foundations will not accept such an arrangement.

Standing Behind Your Grants

Benz: One example where we bore expenditure responsibility for a controversial grant was a group called COYOTE, which is basically a support group for women who have been arrested for prostitution. Now, prostitution is illegal, right? There's no doubt about that, but there are prostitutes who exist, and they do need help; they're in very bad shape, and no one else is going to help them. So we funded a group that provides legal aid and that kind of thing.

There are a lot of women arrested for prostitution who simply-- in fact, there are incredible cases of women who were just going to a party who were walked up to by a vice squad cop *o said: Hey, baby, you want a good time?--or something like that, and he arrested her. That's essentially the kind of thing no one else will fund, and we did bear expenditure responsibility, and the guy from the IRS checked it over and said it was fine. I think that's a very good case.

Morris: Has there ever been a question in your group that, if somebody sued one of these organizations that hadn't gotten around to filing, you people might be liable?

Benz: Well, we, individually, wouldn't be liable. I mean, the Foundation may be liable, but we're just--that 's certainly a risk, and as far as I'm concerned--we actually haven't talked about this very much, I think because we implicitly assume it, though; anything we f'und we're willing to stand behind. If they want to sue something that we fund, I'd enjoy being involved in the fight.

Morris: [~au~hs]As a means of airing the issue and getting it clarified? Benz: Yes. In getting it clarified and getting it resolved. How can you expect that social progress is going to happen unless there's some kind of struggle around controversial issues? Things do slowly evolve, but they evolve partly on the basis of people willing to take a stand somewhere.

Stern: Needs pushing.

Benz: People willing to take a risk that they're going to get hurt for a period of time, in order that the process be accelerated.

What would have happened to civil rights if Martin Luther King hadn't been willing to go and sit in in restaurants? I mean, he committed, basically, a crime as it was set up in those days. Then the restaurant owner had the right to refuse service to anyone. The restaurant owners wanted to refuse service to blacks, so that when Martin Luther King went in and sat in the restaurant, he was committing a crime and he was arrested for it. But he accelerated the civil rights movement five or ten years by that process.

That's why we want to support things that are controversial. Because there're ways in which they're the very most effective.

Morris: Peter, you said something about some things requiring a push?

Stern: Just the whole process of change--

Morris: Or the society needs a push?

Stern: Yes. I'd say gentle pushes, but all sorts of pushes is what set things in motion and set change in motion--I think. I think that once black people started talking about self-defense, you know--it's not a position I felt totally comfortable with, but nonetheless, you have to say that's what got results in the civil rights movement.

Board Decision-making

Morris: Do any of you in your group have legal training, or are any of you in law school?

Benz: One of our board members is a lawyer, and we get advice from her, and that's important to us. We also have a [traffic noise in the background] who has a master 's degree in business administrat ion-- Stern: A city planner just joined our board.

Benz: We're getting to have quite a range of--

Morris: Expertise within the group. That's interesting. Are there areas in which various individuals specialize--prison reform or minority groups or--?

Benz: Certainly some people have more information than others do, in which case they voice it, and their opinion's much more respected.

Stern: Right.

Benz: But we as a board try to act consensually, or do act consensually. We're, right now, actually eighteen people, which is an unwieldy group sometimes, but we require unanimous decisions on grants and sometimes have quite long discussions.

Morris: You said you try to work by consensus. How do you go about--how often do you meet?

Stern: Every three weeks.

Morris: Does somebody run down a list of everything that's come in in that three weeks?

Stern: We get projects in the mail constantly, all the time. We ask for proposals with budgets, and then we type up paragraph synopses, summaries of what the project's essentially about, what they're trying to do, and the total figure they need, et cetera.

Then there's first a screening vote. The board runs down that list and decides which project seems promising enough--enough up our alley, enough within our guidelines to go to see. About three out of ten, on the average, pass that screening vote.

Then we set up that kind of interview we were talking about earlier, with as many people from the board coming to that as are interested in it. We talk for about an hour and a half and get all our questions answered and get a better feel for the project and then make a final decision at the next meeting after that. I think it's about--just a little better than one out of ten, overall, projects we actually fund.

Morris: How many of the applications that come in are organizations that you have some awareness of, either some of the people, or you know the organization--? Benz: In the beginning it was very few, but now--I don't know. I mean, we only fund one out of ten projects that come to us. There's just an awful lot of stuff that 's new. Sometimes we '11 know people whom we can call up to talk to: Do you know these people? Or: Do you know how they work?

Other things we simply are forced to evaluate from a telephone call, after reading their application, which essentially makes us just like all the other foundations. To that extent, I think we have the same kind of bureaucracy, and we didn't really succeed that well in setting up a different bureaucracy than the straighter foundations.

Morris: How many of the ones that come in are completely out of your territory?

Stern: Lots. I wouldn't say a half, but there are a good many each time that are clearly too far out and into some sort of--

Morris: There are things that are too far out for you guys?

Stern: Well, for instance--this is a great example--the World Peace Plan or World Disarmament Plan, a guy who wanted to fly to Rome to talk to Fellini about doing a press release for when he kidnapped the Pope and held him for ransom for world peace, getting all the world leaders to say: Okay, we'll disarm if you'll only release the Pope.

Benz: Yes, we've had a lot of crazy stuff, but there's also things that-- like, we don't fund very much environmental kinds of things, nor do we fund any day-care centers or things related to kids--

Morris: You don't?

Stern: No. We don't get into the personal growth or religious movements, and a good amount of applications have been coming in from those sorts of things.

Benz: Free clinics and switchboards and that kind of thing we don't f'und, as well. In other words, we fund groups which are primarily promoting change in some established institution or are basically the first people setting up a new model, which will get picked up by something else.

Stern : Exactly.

Benz: We don't fund ones which are primarily providing services that are needed as a result of some of the ways this society is. I guess we see, say, a free clinic, for instance--although it's definitely alternative--as primarily providing a service; and not only that , there are so many of them in town. Stern: That's the thing. It is a model that has been--not exactly established, but there are many examples of free clinics that came up before we even came into existence. We're essentially trying to provide new ways of dealing with institutional systems. 3. OBSERVATIONS OF THE FOUNDATION COMMUNITY

Fellow Boat -rockers

Morris: Do you refer things back and forth--it looked to me as if there are two or three other organizations that are at your part of the spectrum: Glide and Pacific Change--?

Benz: Yes. Actually, I don't know if Pacific Change exists any more.

Stern: And I don't think Glide's a funding organization.

Benz: Butthereare severalgroups. TheretsagroupcalledtheRegional Young Adult Project, one called the Third World Control Project, and just a variety of small, private-based foundations [traffic noise in background.], with a variety of smaller funding sources, but they fund the same kind of things we do.

Morris: Do you feel that they're in the same territory?

Stern: Yes.

Morris: With the same kind of group process?

Stern: In general, yes. And in the same general level of granting. Although I'd say each of the foundations has its own particular area of emphasis that's slightly different. But, in general, we do overlap.

Morris: Do those generally relate to the skills and interests of the people in each organization?

Stern: Yes, and their perspectives on what's important. We have a bit of a bias against educational projects. We ended up funding a lot of them, but we prefer to fund things that are 'direct action', having Stern: more of a direct, concrete result, although a lot of people disagree with that emphasis, that priority.

Morris: Is the Regional Young Adult Project part of a national operation?

Benz: No, they just started their own here, seven or eight years ago. The director of that is Herb Allen. They used to work in Glide's office. Now they have a new office that--I think they share an office with the Third World Fund.

Stern: Yes.

Morris: It seemed to me, in looking through the directory, that there were two or three that operated out of that same office on Ellis Street.

Stern: Yes. It's now at 540 Powell, in the Erotic Art Museum.

Morris: [~aughs] Isn't that also a spin-off from some Glide projects?

Stern: Right. Genesis Church, essentially, is the over-all , main arm. There are about three or four arms of that whole consortium.

Morris: Does this group function as a coalition at all, in the foundation community?

Benz : Yes. I mean, we don't have anything established. We don't say: Okay, we're the alternative foundations, and we think you ought to do this.

But we all know each other, and we all have more or less common agendas. And we're all, I think, identified as being in the same basic area of funding.

We've tried to get together in some meetings to see what we could do, talking with each other. We all know each other, and we all see each other, usually, anyway, and didn't feel that there was much point in our organizing together, unless something particular came up, which it hasn't.

Morris: Because the foundation community is small enough that you don't really need that kind of thing?

Benz : Well, yes. Larger Foundations

Benz: And there's another aspect: the extent to which an organization would actually be able to effect something, other than we could do individually, because we're not into confrontation with the larger foundations.

Morris: No. I get the sense that you may even take the heat off them.

Stern: In cektain ways, possibly.

Morris: Is this the sense that you get from them at all?

Benz: Well, they really like us. I mean, they've been fantastically supportive of us, and we appreciate that--both in the very, very beginning, and since then, even more so. So, I guess, yes, there are certain kinds of groups that can get funding because we're here, that otherwise might try and push them harder, but I don't know.

Morris: Well, the larger foundations only have X number of dollars, too.

Stern: Right, exactly.

Benz: We give such a small amount of money, too. We certainly can't sustain people like a lot of the larger foundations can.

Stern: Exactly. So I don't think we're really taking the heat off too much, because often we're seeding a project that'll need much larger support and has to go on to those same foundations. We've found, I think, that our granting does--I mean, any time a project receives a grant, it's sort of a stamp of legitimacy, and we're certainly included in that whole process. Once we give someone a grant, we sort of put a stamp of our trust on them. That means something to other foundations.

Morris: You've been going long enough now so that you've got some evidence of this. Have you got reports back from your grantees that--?

Stern: Well, we follow their progress, you know, and know where else they're applying. There've been several good instances where grantees of ours have gone on to get other funding, and we've heard some feedback that our grant was fairly significant in securing that.

Morris: You said early on that a lot of your projects have gotten a lot of media coverage. Have you gotten static from various segments of the community? Benz : No, not at all. In fact, let me see--cOyO~~has had a good deal of media coverage. There's a group called Network Against Psychiatric Assault, which is fighting shock treatment and that sort of thing.

Morris: Yes, that's a neat acronym in California, since it's the name of a state mental hospital.

Benz : NAPA, yes. [~nterru~tionfor phone call1 I 'm sorry.

Morris: That's okay. You said you didn't get any static from the community in general on the kinds of groups that you've funded?

Benz : No, We just haven't. There's whole different levels of what people consider the community to be, too.

Morris: Yes. I put it broadly to see where this came out.

Benz: For some of the traditional foundations, their community is the community of all lawyers, doctors--all people with influence, and people who have incomes over $35,000 a year. Whereas the community that we fund considers the community to be all people who have incomes less than ten thousand dollars or are black, brown, yellow, women, or something like that.

Some Aspects of the Youth Movement

Morris: How about the youth movement, as such? Are you a part of that?

Stern: [~aughs1

Benz: It's hard to get a handle on that. We really haven't--

Morris: I've gotten into some fascinating discussions lately about what's youth. Since I'm over forty, I think it's worth pursuing.

Benz: I agree. The only youth thing we did--

Stern: We do Chinese youth projects.

Benz: Yes, we funded a group of Chinese young people who were trying to get out of Chinatown, basically.

Morris: They were trying to get out of Chinatown? Benz : Yes. They were being severely harassed by the police, and there was really nothing they could do about it while they were still there. This was at a time when some incredible number of people had been murdered in what appeared to be gang wars, but which was also deeply tied to illicit gambling and illegal activtties in Chinatown, in which the young people were foisted off as the fall guy for the real power interests that were there--anyway, it was an unusual thing for us to get into because we don't fund community groups that are getting murdered all the time, all around us. They basically wanted to set up a house, and we helped support it. Also, Rosenberg helped support that as well.

Stern : One of our earliest and smallest grants was to a group of high school women who were putting out their own publication on various issues that affected them.

Morris: Do you feel that these issues that you are addressing are primarily coming out of the youth movement?

Stern : I think it's all tied in in the values somehow, in some abstract way, but it's mainly the whole community, I'd say.

Benz : At twenty-five, I'm kind of confused at what the youth movement really is now, because there definitely was a youth movement, starting from about 1966. It entailed loosening of a whole variety of social views--sex, the use of drugs, basic respect for authority which just crumbled during that time; success drives and success orientations and that kind of thing were all being questioned by that particular youth movement, as well as the Viet Nam war, which was a major part of--

Morris : That's primarily people eighteen to twenty-five , too, isn't it?

Benz: Right. So I think that that--I understood what the youth movement was at that time. There's all sorts of civil rights involved in that kind of thing, too. Through that have come, I think, many of the social issues that we're dealing with now. I think there's kind of a hiatus, or I don't think there's a significant amount of push or change coming from high school kids, as I see it, on that kind of a broad level. There's a certain extent to which the young people in the sixties forced those issues into the national consciousness.

Morris : Those were primarily college-age, weren't they?

Stern: Yes.

Benz : Yes. Now that they're into the national consciousness, I don't really see that unified movement. Stern: Yankelovich had an interesting survey on that that he did for the JDR I11 [~ohnD. Rockefeller, 1111 Fund last year.

Morris: I heard about it, but I haven't seen the results.

Stern: It's fairly complex, but basically he was saying that the values that sprang up within the youth of the sixties are slowly disseminating throughout the society, to the working-class youth of the same age group and to other segments of the society. But also that college kids today are a lot more concerned about their personal futures and well-being and careers--things like that.

Morris: It relates to the economy?

Stern: Yes, for sure. It's complicated. But underlying that, also, though, they still do have the same sort of values. He found certain evidences of a certain sort of cynicism about: Well, what can we really do about it? What can we do about the problems of society? I'm going to mainly attend to myself.

Morris: What about fairly recent developments like this Resource Exchange that I've heard about? Wasn't that also funded by the same Rockefeller Fund?

Benz : We don't know too much about them. I'm not sure exactly what they do, but apparently--I don't know if they even see themselves as representing a movement of young people. As I understand it, they primarily are young people--and that's 'young' broadly defined, too; I don't know if any of them are younger than twenty.

Morris: No, I don't think so. I think some of its youth members are twenty to thirty years old.

Benz : Yes, I think that's true. They are getting together and discussing a whole variety of issues regularly with business leaders. So I think that rather than seeing themselves as part of a whole movement, they are each injecting their understandings and world views into discussion with business leaders.

Morris: Does it relate to people under thirty having positions of decision- making authority?

Benz: Do you mean does that particular group?

Morris: Yes.

Benz : But, see, that's part of the problem I think they're talking about-- there aren't too many people under thirty in a position of authority. Morris: Yes. I wondered if your group in a way represents that. You've set up your own group, in which you are making the decisions.

Benz : Yes. It's hard to tell. Coincidentally, we've been talking to some of those people about--some people expressed interest in our at least talking to them as well, and expressing our views and getting some feedback from them about what they think they were doing. I guess so.

I wonder how many other people there are, actQally, besides us, who represent influence on this particular level--on the level of disseminating money--in town. I think most of the people really are older. Pacific Change was younger, but now there's real doubt as to whether they'll continue. And there are certainly people working in various media who are young people and who are influential through that, but they've all basically become professionals, in the sense that they're young, effective professionals.

Morris: Executives.

Benz: I mean, there's nothing wrong with that at all.

Morris: Your group would like to maintain an amateur status?

Benz : No. No, you're right. We want .to be professionals, too. I mean, we are, to a certain extent. We try and make the best, most effective decisions that we can.

Morris: Yes, based on evidence and observation and good scientific method.

Stern: We try to be very careful, very thoughtful about what we do support and what we don't.

Morris: I would like to turn the tape over, and then I'd like to ask you about your annual report. ÿÿ ape turned over]

4. EVALUATING THE FIRST THREE YEARSt WORK

Education and Leverage

Morris: I wanted to ask you about your annual report. I think it's one of the more interesting ones I have read in the last six months. You list the project head, too, so the people can be contacted, and they get credit as well as their organization. Do you write it collectively?

Benz : Yes. This is the third report. I don't know if we sent you all three, but each one--Peter and I have worked on them; we sort of each wrote a draft and then sat next to each other here on this couch and--

Stern: Argued about each period ! [~au~hs]

Benz: Gone over every single word. And for this latest, this 28-page report here really took a lot of time. [copy in supporting documents in The Bancroft Library. ]

Morris: I can believe it. I liked the double-barreled approach; it looked as if you'd made a conscious effort to state the problem and the situation and then relate the grant to that.

Benz: Right. Weconsideredittobekindof aneducationaldocument, as well, for the people to see why we fund what we fund. So we wanted to map out the problem as we saw it and as our grantees saw it, and, in a way which--frequently, other funding sources (which we were trying to influence with that document) are not aware of problems as we see them, at all.

Morris: Is that your modus operandi all around? That you're looking for a double pay-off or leverage, that you see all the Vanguard Foundation activities as an educational thing? Benz : Sure.

Stern: Yes. It's hard to say what exactly will come out of that. I think just the fact that we're here and we're working within the system tends to legitimize these kinds of projects that we fund, as well as the concerns or the problems that underline them.

Benz : Yes, that's something that we've found from the beginning, that we can use the influence of our backgrounds and our own wealth to get other people to listen to us, and they will listen to us in ways that they won't listen to other people.

Stern: Especially people who are being overly challenging or confronting in their approach.

Morris : Do you feel that you, in turn, have had a modifying influence on some of the fire-eaters that come in for money?

Benz : [~aughs] It's possible. I think that some people--I mean, we've come under criticism as well, and rightfully so in a lot of ways, for all being wealthy people and all keeping control of the money ourselves, which is the way we're doing it. So I think that some of the fire-breathers are breathing more fire towards us than--

Morris: Yes. Is this the question of access to resources; have you had questions that you should turn over--?

Benz : Well, the actual decision-making about who decides who ought to decide who finally gets money. The way that a lot of low-income communities and disenfranchised people, which is a huge number of people in the country, see it as the wealthy people always deciding how to allocate money to the non-wealthy. And to that extent, we're no different than any of the other foundations. I think that's a good, valid criticism.

Morris : How do you answer it?

Benz : We really don't. There are some funds, like the Third World, where they are the disenfranchised people making the decisions. We think it's important to get our board to get involved with grantees themselves and to not actually delegate that responsibility to other people. Simply because we're wealthy doesn't mean that we can't get involved in helping to promote social change ourselves or support social change ourselves.

Stern : It's a whole process, also, of all of us getting together to do it ourselves or to find out ourselves about what alternatives are available and how to deal with money. In a sense, there's sort of Stern: a training aspect to our group. Also, it acts in the same way as a women's group can concern itself with problems that are unique to women. Our group tends to talk about problems that are unique to us, as coming from these kinds of backgrounds and trying to deal with these issues and the many sorts of conflicts you get into trying to bring those two together.

Morris : You've mentioned social change several times. Where is the dividing line between the kind of social change that these projects are working towards and the political activity which is frowned upon by the IRS?

Benz : It's a hard line to make, and when we start talking legal technicalities, when we get to those, we always consult the Foundatio.nls lawyer with each one, and he's very well-versed on all the particular aspects.

Everything we fund is totally legal. It doesn't influence legislation. It's not involved in any kind of electoral process, and it's not doing any kind of voter registration, nor is there any benefit or profit that inures to any individual as a result of any of our grants. Those are the main tests which the IRS puts on foundations. There's nothing in law that says we can't fund controversial things. That is, just as long as it doesn't get into any of those things I just mentioned.

Stern: It's a funny line, because we can get involved with litigation, class- action lawsuits, we can deal with projects that are trying to talk to regulatory bodies, such as the PUC or the Department of Health, but we cannot influence law-making bodies.

Morris: So that you change the climate of opinion in a community, but--?

Stern: Yes, that's perfectly all right.

Morris: And the long-range effect is that somebody then 'out there' introduces a law?

Stern: Yes, that's quite all right.

Morris : That's very interesting.

Benz : In fact--and I'm thinking federally now--you can put an assistant in the office of a Senator to do background or research work, preparatory to a bill, but as long as it isn't a specific bill that this research assistant is doing work on, it's okay. They can do work in the general health issues, they research all the previous health legislation, they look into it, but they just can't--I mean, it's such a fine line, and it's really ultimately decided on by the IRS and the lawyers for the particular groups. Morris: Are these local IRS people that you're dealing with, or does Washington send a team out?

Benz: No,theytrethelocaloffice.

Morris: In general, how do you find them. to work with?

Benz: The Internal Revenue Service?

Morris: Yes.

Benz: Well, we've only been through one audit. We weren't audited last year, but we may be audited--I presume we'll be audited this year.

Stern : Hopefully not.

Benz: No, itdoesn'treallymatter. I sortoflikehavingtheaudit and then passing it. I like to be able to say--

Morris: That sounds like the old joke about the guy who got the paper that released him from the mental hospital and said: See, I am certified sane.

Benz: Yes, right. I like to be able to say to people: Look we 've done all this stuff, -and we passed the IRS audit--which'I think would shock a lot of people.

Grant Results

Morris: Do you feel that you have made an impact?

Stern: Yes. I think especially if you take it case-by-case. Each project, just about, with very Few exceptions, has made some significant progress toward its goals. Admittedly, we're dealing with small amounts of money, and so they're very small increments in terms of over-all society; but, yes , I think so.

Morris: Is three years long enough, with your collective observations, to have any sense of whether there's been any general movement in the community towards the kinds of things that you are interested in?

Benz: It's hard to say: Well, we did this, and as a result, this happened.

I mean, it's hard to be that direct. I know that there's been a general feeling that foundations in town respect what we do, even Benz : though they don't actually say it, and I'm sure that people are aware of certain issues that they wouldn't otherwise be aware of because of our presence in various things.

In terms of our actually giving money, it's just so hard to tell. Each one of our specific grants, and we've made ninety of them, had some specific results. The long-lasting effects from that are much harder to tell. I think there have been--

Morris: Have any of the organizations done a job and then gone out of existence?

Benz: Yes. I mean, some of our grants specifically are for that. For instance, we funded some films.

Stern: One-shot things.

Benz : We funded San Francisco Consumer Action's banking study--that kind of thing, and the organizations are still continuing.

Stern: Some groups have gone out. A group we funded, called the Prison Law Collective, did very, very good work. They didn't go out before our money got used well, but just over the long run, they found they couldnlt get the kind of financial support they felt they needed to keep going, from bigger sources.

Morris : Have you stayed in touch with any of the individuals?

Stern: Yes, especially because we're trying to get a final report out of them, and it ls been very slow in coming. [~au~hter1

Morris : Does that take a lot of follow-up?

Stern: Yes, because people put a lot of energy into fund-raising, but then when it comes report time, that's the kind of thing that slips.

Morris : They're out looking for some more money?

Stern : Or whatever. It's just not something that people are especially eager to do. So that requires just a lot of phone calls and nagging. [~aughter1

Morris : Do you have any plans for doing any kind of analysis of the grant reports as they stack up, now that you have funded ninety projects?

Stern: We had a woman who was working with us, named Sukie Lilienthal, for a while, who took it upon herself to do most of the evaluations for this last year, to call up people and say: What's happened? Stern: Then we discussed it at our annual meeting.. We went down each of the grants and talked about what they had done versus what they planned to do originally and how that all measured up. It seemed very good, on the whole.

Benz: That can be analyzed--what they did relative to what they said they'd do and what difference did it make--but to set up an analysis process where we're judging various grants' effectiveness against other kinds of somewhat disparate grants ' effectiveness, is really a lot harder to do. How do you judge something in women's rights as opposed to various kinds of public interest grants to the Network Against Psychiatric Assault? They're in totally different areas of funding, so it's very hard to relate them.

Stern: I think that's a problem for all foundations, evaluating--

Morris: Right. That's why I asked it. Another question that's been raised is, if you sent back through some of the prior evaluations or final reports. or rejected applications, would you come up with ideas that needed to be explored further? Or aspects that hadn't really jelled at the time, but several years later might be worth looking at again?

Benz : We don't have any formal process for doing that. Most people--in fact, a huge number of people who are turned down--say: Okay, when can we apply again?

Some of these people do apply again. And we more or less leave it to their initiative that if they need money, they're going to get in touch with us.

Morris: You don't hveany rules about: If we've funded you so many times, you can't come back.

Stern: Not specifically.

Benz : No. We funded one group three times. We don't like to fund people time after time after time. We don't want people to become dependent on our funding for their operations, but when specific things came up, or specific emergencies happen, we're certainly willing to respond.

Contacts ~e~ondthe Bay Area

Morris: Will you say: We don't think we can fund you again, but why don't you talk to these other people? Benz : We do that as a matter of course.

Stern: We're doing more and more of that as part of our work, acting as sort of a f'unding source of advice on where to go, both in New York-- national-oriented foundations for larger .proj ects--and locally.

Morris : Are the nationals coming to you looking for advice and information?

Stern: We're getting more and more national projects along the lines of the things we tend to fund locally. I think a lot of people just don't realize that our funding's limited to the Bay Area. We're constahtly trying to disseminate that fact. Largely through Obie's efforts we know a lot about the New York foundations and what they tend to do, and also from talking to them at these conferences of the Council on Foundations we'll do some sort of brokering occasionally.

Morris : Obie said all three of the staff part of the board went to the conference in Chicago. Are you finding that there are more groups like yours in other communities?

Benz : We helped get one started in Cambridge, Massachusetts, an organization called the Haymarket Foundation. The difference is, though, in the way they made that step and answered that question: Who's making the decision? They set up a board of seven community activists to make the decisions, rather than the young, wealthy people themselves.

Morris : Where 'd they get the money?

Benz : From the young, wealthy people.

Morris : Who stay off to one side as the funding arm, separate from grant- making decisions?

Stern: It was both a political decision and a tactical one, in that the guy who set it up felt that his donors couldn't get together and do this kind of decision-making, that they weren't interested.

Benz : They weren't. That's interesting. In any case, I think that they're doing really good work. They just fund in the Cambridge--and some part of wider New England area, but mostly right around Boston.

There's a whole series of other, just young philanthropists who have begun foundations, in New York and in--

Morris: What I've heard from some senior members of the philanthropic community here is a sense of regret that the younger generation doesn't seem to take the interest in philanthropy that the older generation does. Benz: Up to a point, that may be true. I 'm not actually sure. Because the young people that we cqme in contact with, or the ones we come in contact with primarily, are ones who are interested in doing something with their money.

Stern: A lot of them, though--from our generation--haven't figured out exactly how to set up a mechanism whereby they can use their money for the sorts of concerns they have that are different from the traditional philanthropic concerns. That's why I think it's really valuable to go around promulgating this model as a possibility for them, and have people take their different directions from it.

Federal Granting

Morris: Do you come in contact with many groups who are getting federal funding, and how does that work?

Stern: We don't know a whole lot about it. I'd like to learn a lot more about how that whole, giant thing works, because it makes foundation money seem very insignificant by comparison.

Benz: But we also have criteria, which we sometimes make exceptions to, but only very rarely, that we won't fund a project if it has access to either traditional foundations or federal funding. There are times when groups that we have funded go on to get, or apply for, a federal grant; but if they've already been funded or already been involved in federal kinds of funding, we don't even talk to them.

Morris: Have you gotten any feedback or backlash from some of the shifts in federal granting money that used to be available that has gone off to other directions?

Benz: No, very rarely.

Stern: We hear about it, just because people--like in day-care, for instance--say there's a big gap. There's nowhere for them to turn.

Benz : I'm not sure that there ever was.

Morris: I spent some time in day-care; it was very frustrating. The idea and the money never matched.

Stern: Sometimes, OEO-funded projects that are just at loose ends now come in, but we don't tend to be able to help them. 5. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: VANGUARD, GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS

Morris: I've got two more questions. I don't want to keep you too long. One is that the first time I called your fine answering mechanism, it said: We're all off at Santa Cruz Day. Now, that was a lovely image. What' s Santa Cruz Day?

Benz: We fund some projects down in Santa Cruz, and in line with our policy of seeing people at their place, we had set aside a whole day to get down there because it's such a long drive, and we went down and saw a women's health clinic that we helped fund--as well as had a picnic, and talked about how our criteria should be changing or are changing and how we can respond to it and all those kind of things, which we frequently don't have time to do. So it was a good opportunity to talk about them.

Morris: Are there more things coming out of the Santa Cruz area than other areas of the greater Bay Area?

Benz: A lot of things flow out of the college community, and there are some things going on just generally, but we haven't had many [traffic noise drowns out conversation momentarily] ...

Stern: Not a whole lot. There's one thing we're looking at right now. We funded a women's prison project that was bringing educational classes into the California Institution for Women, a really good program.

Morris: You said you were talking about whether or not you should change your criteria. What was the nature of that discussion?

Benz: Well, partly, we have more money now--more than can really, I think, be given away well in two to five thousand-dollar chunks. So we decided to make some large grants, which we more or less initiate ourselves, or work with past grantees--in other words, we 're not taking applications for projects for twenty thousand dollar grants. Morris: But you will possibly develop one with somebody you've worked with before?

Benz : Yes. And we've decided that--I think we might give away forty percent of our money that way.

Morris : In larger chunks?

Benz : Yes.

Morris: If Vanguard's assets are increasing, does that mean you're building up something of an endowment, a capital fund?

Benz : No.

Stern: And we've spent time, just in general, reviewing what we tend to do and what we tend not to do, and seeing if those guidelines are still the way we want them, or maybe they should be more nailed down in certain cases. We end up making lots of exceptions to these guidelines. [~aughter] So, reviewing that kind of thing.

We've tended to steer away from artistic and cultural projects in recent times. We originally funded a few, but it's gone down to zero in '74, and some people on our board are very interested in bringing that whole area up for reconsideration, about how we can do some good things--

Morris: Why did you steer away from arts and culture?

Stern: I guess if we're talking about social change, it's a more distant type of effect, in terms of social change, than the sort of direct, systemic institutional change that we usually tend to fund.

Morris: If you came across a young Picasso who wanted to do murals of the New Society, would you fund him?

Stern: That's a good question.

Benz: That's sort of a problem. In a political sense, we see ourselves as funding basic needs, and art isn't a basic need. I mean, it's a need, very definitely, but it 's not a food, clothing, shelter, employment kind of thing.

Morris: It's not survival.

Benz: Secondly, I just don't know how we would evaluate an artist, how we would know if a young artist was Picasso or Joe Blow. And there are Benz: balances between them. Like, the farmworkers have a campesino theater group, and the San Francisco Mime Troupe did a whole variety of--

Stern: All political.

Benz : --presentations and performances, which I think are fantastic ; but, still, we draw the line on the other side. We always do. We're going to be working with more basic, survival kinds of questions.

Morris : Do some of these questions come up because--it sounds like you've expanded your working group. Does this bring in new kinds of concerns or raise new questions?.

Stern: You mean, because we've expanded our membership?

Morris: Yes.

Stern: Yes, sure. New people have different concerns, but I think it's also a function of where we are in our evolution. You know: we've done this sort of thing now. It's just becoming more clear what the possibilities are, and each member's thinking is tending to try to settle for each person where we should go.

Morris: What do you think is going to happen to Vanguard as an organization as its members hit thirty?

Benz : We're committed to see it continue as it is. Up until now, we've been able to do most of the staff work ourselves, except for some typing. Like, I do most of the typing in the office. Part of that entails our being able to work for free. In order to keep our overhead down, we're trying to interest more of our board members in working here full or part time. We've had some success in doing that. To the extent that we can raise more money, and I think we '11 be able to, we'll be able to hire people to help do some of the work here; we're doing that this year.

I think that if one of us moved on to something else, and Vanguard didn't continue, I don't think it would be a tragedy, but it would be too bad, because I think we're doing very good stuff, and I think it is effective. We'll be taking some time in a few years to see the thing get on its feet and that we can change it into an organization which we feel can keep going.

Stern: I don't think either of us see ourselves working here more than three more years, certainly.* I don't, and I gather Obie doesn't. So that will require a transition in the people working, and I'm sure the membership.wil1 continue to change gradually over the years. I would

*The Vanguard publication reports that Peter Stern left the Foundation office in June 1976, after four years of full time work. Ed. Stern: really like to see it keep going, because I think it is a really good thing.

Morris : That's a neat trick, to try and keep the kind of spontaneity and responsiveness that you now have. What kinds of things do you see in the future for yourselves as individuals with this kind of experience?

Benz : It's hard to tell. I'm thinking of trying to help get other organizations like this started in different parts of the country. I've already gone down to L.A. and talked to some people, and it looks like there's a reasonable possibility that that could happen there. Generally, I think that each of us see ourselves as trying to get our idea across to all groups of other wealthy, young people. Maybe we can help extend the ties with your older philanthropists. Otherwise, it's possible we could get involved in large foundations. It's possible--for myself--that I could just work in other socially related fields.

Morris : Is there any transfer potential for the skills you've developed here to business and industry or the government?

Benz : Certainly it 's a possibility. The government has so much money, but the bureaucracies that it sets up are just plain dreadful. We talk to government people whenever we can and try and get them to see what we're doing. They're in a much different kind of position; I think it can be hard for them to respond to social issues on this level.

Morris : Because of the bureaucracy?

Benz: Because of the bureaucracy, and because of the way they get elected or appointed, because of fears about losing people's jobs, losing everybody's jobs.

Morris : Is that necessarily permanent?

Benz : No, I don't think so. I think that they're going to be dealing with the questions that we've been funding in five or ten years, or generally, as things go along, and they're spread by evolution.

Stern : On the state level, I think that's happening now in certain respects.

Morris : It sounds like it, from what one reads in the papers.

Benz : Well, and it just so happens that the people that Governor Brown appointed to various positions are--well, actually, weren't people funded by us, but they were people funded by some of the--definitely more liberal than any of the big foundations. Morris : What about the business and industry sector?

Stern: I've been thinking a lot about that, not necessarily for myself to get into that. I think it's very important that business start to come up with new models, pushing new products and services and having different ways of setting up hierarchies of command, if you will--do job sharing; things like that, I think, are a very essential area to get into. I think work is the big problem behind all problems, in a way--problems of employment and how people's lives are affected by, generally, doing things that they're somewhat alienated from, which I consider to be mainly the case. I don't know how I could get in on all that, but it's something I'm thinking about a lot. It's hard to say.

[~elephonerings ; Benz answers. 1

Morris : Well, business, like government, is made up of individuals. Some people who have inherited wealth go in and become vice presidents.

Stern: [Laughs1 That 's right.

Morri s : I've covered all of my questions. Are there any things I haven't asked you that touch on important things in your work?

Stern: I can't think of any right off hand. I don't think so.

Morris : Okay. When you get the transcript, if you find that something needs to be said, please add it. Did I see Obie looking at a statement he prepared for the Council conference last week?

Stern: I don't know. [Laughs] We were each on a breakfast panel at the Council. That was really interesting, presenting what we did, in conjunction with three other people on each panel.

Morris: You were on two separate panels?

Stern: Right. Well, they were the same thing. There was enough interest in the subject that they had split the presentation into two separate rooms. It was "~ewFaces, New Approaches." It was an interesting session.

Morris : Did you find some new faces in some of the big foundations, the nationals?

Stern: A few years ago, there was a whole movement of hiring black people into foundations, and now a very significant portion of foundation Stern: workers are black, and they have a black foundation executives' group. I think that's very significant, in terms of getting social change perspectives into foundations, at least on the staff level. A lot of those people do have the frustration of dealing with boards who don't share their concerns and are not open to those concerns, but there are some larger and more established foundations doing very good work. Cummins Engine comes to mind right away.

Morris: As in automobile engines?

Stern: Diesel engines.

Morris: Is that a company foundation?

Stern: Yes. They were really pioneers in racial relations for several years.

Morris: Are they in the Midwest?

Stern: Yes , Indiana.

Morris: [TO ~enz]I was saying to Peter that if you have an important point that we haven't touched on, do you want to put in on the tape now, or would you like to think about it a little?

Benz: No,I feelgoodabout what we've said.

Morris: Good. I've enjoyed hearing it. I think you've opened up some very interesting ideas.

Benz: You can take as many of each of these reports as you like.

Morris: I'd be happy to take several along because I keep coming in contact with people who are looking for grants.

Benz: Sure, take them and spread them around.

Morris: Fine. Thank you kindly.

[End of Interview]

Interviewer-Editor : Gabrielle Morris Transcriber : Bob McCargar Final Typist: Judy Johnson INDEX -- Bay Area Foundation History, Volume IV

Adams, Philip, 11-12, 21 Adoptions Committee, California, 10-14, 21, 28, 44, 50 aging, problems of, 14 agriculture, and foundations, 72, 83 Alameda County, Department of Education, 231-232 Alameda County Foundat ion, 231 Alioto, Joseph, 253 Allen, Herb, 298 American Association of University Women, Well Baby Clinic, 123 American Conservatory Theater Foundation, 59 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations [AFL-CIO], 274 American Federation of Teachers, 233 American Friends Service Committee, 257 sponsorship of other organizations, 241, 256 American Heart Association, 205, 224 Anti-Defamation League, Bnai Brith, 100, 113 The Art of Board Membership, 25 Asawa, Ruth, 162 Asians, 48 Assembly, California, 118-122, 126, 128 Attorney General, California, 68-69, 138 attorneys , and foundations, 6-7, 11, 14, 78-80, 84, 291, 306 and philanthropy, 130 Athenian School, 81 Audubon Society, 78

Baldwin, James, 267 Ball, Jay, 228-229, 231 Bancroft, James R. , 78-80 banks, and foundations, 62, 64, 68, 284 and philanthropy, 152-153 see also business Barrows, David P. , 120 Bay Area Learning Center, 232 Bay Area Rapid Transit District [BART], 252 Bay Area Social Planning Council, 175 Beard, Mr. , 254 Beise, Clark, 137, 153 Belden, Joe, 282 Bell and Howell Business Equipment Group, 204 Benz, Obie, 175, 177, 202, 281-317 Berkeley, Council of Churches, 111 public schools , 110-111, 207-236 internal grants, 221, 225 young activists in, 201 Bettell, Betty, 54, 68 Binswanger , Bob, 208 blacks. See Negroes black capitalism, 269, 271 Blake, Herman, 273-274 Blumenthal, Ben, 23 Blumenthal, Louis, 5, 11 Boy Scouts of America, 77 Branson, Katherine, School, 81 Brown, Edmund G., Jr., 198, 315 Brown, Edmund G ., Sr., 21, 28 Brmc kner , , 245 Budge, Hamilton, 135 Bull, Diene , 133 Burton, Phil, 238 business, and foundations, 26, 72, 78, 81, 93-95, 97 and minorities, 270-272, 274 and philanthropy, 152, 171, 178-179, 247-248, 302, 316 research and development, 220 and social responsibility, 62-64, 182-183, 272 see also banks Butler, Lewis, 62, 65

Cahill, John R., Sr ., 239, 247-249, 264-265 Cahill, Thomas J., 253 Cahill Construction Company, 239 Caldecott , Thomas, 126 California Academy of Science, 74 California ~rtsCommission, 163 California Democratic Council, 127 California Heart Association, 205 California Institute for Women, 312 California Teachers' Association, 233 Carden, Georgiana , 8 Cathedral School, San Francisco, 81 Catholic charities, 179 Catholic Social Service Agency, 2, 20 Cazadero Music Center, 77 Central Valley. -See San Joaquin Valley, California Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco, 247 Chance, Ruth, 1, 19, 24, 28-30, 33-39, 42-45, 52, 60, 66-67, 69, 99-100, 102-103, 105-107, 112-113, 172, 175-177 , 194, 199, 207, 209 3 215-216 221 223-224 226, 244-246, 256, 258, 276 Charles, Caroline Moore, 24,29, 47, 65, 164-165 ~hgvez,~gsar, 41 chicanos . & Mexican-Americans Child Abuse Coordinating Project, 37 Children's Agency, San Francisco, 2 Children's Home Society, 10-13 Children's Hospital, Oakland, 77 Children's Hospital, San Francisco, 77 children's services. &youth, services Chinese, 300-301 in San Francisco, 252 Chinese Cultural Center, 41 Chinn, Bill, 251-252 Christopher, George, 18-22, 253 Chronic Illness Service Center, 14 Citizens' League, San Francisco, 186 civil rights , 212-214, 293, 301 Coleman, Gertrude, 154-155 Coleman Trust, 154-155 Columbia Foundation, 45 Community Chest, San Francisco, 1-3, 8, 10, 18, 25 community organization, 9, 54-55 Community Research Associates, 19, 35 Community Streetwork Center, 263 Conners, Emily 241 Consumer Action, San Francisco, 166 Cook, Ed, 278 Coro Foundation, 132 Council for Civic Unity, 168, 195 Council of Social Agencies, San Francisco, 2-3 Council on Foundations, 60, 95, 165, 310, 316 COYOTE, 292, 300 Cranston, Alan, 127 Crittendon, Florence, Home, 228 Crocker Bank, 154 Crocker family, 179 Crystal Springs School, 81 Cummings , Mrs. , 131 Cummins Engine, 317 deMarche, David, 257 Dibner, Robert, 253 DiGiorgio, Robert, 46 Dinkelspiel, Lloyd, Sr., 4-5 Djerassi, Dale, 282 Ducks Unlimited, 77-79 Duniway, Ben, 16, 24, 28-29, 47, 65 Duveneck, Josephine, 257 Edgewood Home, San Francisco, 134, 138, 156, 163-164 educ ation , desegregation, 203, 212-214, 231 experimental, 204, 207-208, 210, 214, 225-226, 235-236 funding of, 204, 217-221 health, 224 teacher training, 209-210, 232 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 206 Eliot, Thomas, 6-7 Elkus, Charles de Young, Sr., 24 Encyclopedia Britannica, 204 Erotic Art Museum, 298 Exploratorium, San Francisco, 85

Family Service Agency, 16, 28, 124 Fantini, Mario, 207-208, 210-211, 216 farmworkers , 41 Favors, John, 232 Favors , Kathryne , 232 Fazackerly, Don, 18 Federation of Jewish Charities, 1-2 Fellowship Church, 275, 277 Felton, Katharine, 2 Filer, John, 171 Filer Commission, 171, 188-190 Flanagan, Monsignor, 8 Fleishhacker, Mortimer, 257 Fleishhacker family, 23 Fletcher ,, Earl, 251 Ford Foundation, 27, 56, 66, 102, 105, 113-115, 162, 191, 200, 207-208, 210, 213-215, 243, 245, 261 Oakland Gray Areas Projects, 103 Foster, Marcus, 232 Foster, Richard, 203-236 Foundation Executives Group, Bay Area, 165-166 Foundation for Advancing Continuing Education [FACE], 110-113 foundation grants, accountability, 215-216 advocacy, 284 to alternative services, 201 building funds, 31, 77, 81-82, 144 Chinese, 301 continued funding for, 166-167, 173, 217-218, 284 cultural, 77, 131, 312, 314 education, 36-37, 53, 81-82, 85-87, 110, 144, 186, 200, 207, 219-220, 223, 233 emergency, 145-146 employment , 163 environmental, 73-78, 90-91, 168, 180 evaluation of, 90-91 , 103, 105, 108-111, 148, 173, 194, 305-309 expenditure responsibility, 33-34, 291-292 gypsies, 112 health care, 26, 43-44, 48, 145 hospitals, 77-79, 81 initiating, 37-38, 89, 160-161, 175, 229, 312-313 innovative, 43-45, 51, 85, 89, 91, 150, 185, 192-193, 221, 282 joint, 145, 157 legal assistance, 17, 185, 198 matching, 40-41, 58, 74, 77, 81-82, 91 Mexican-American, 32, 288, 314 to minority groups, 31, 41-42, 53, 102-104, 111, 153-154, 214-215, 245, 250-251, 300 officers', 69 operating budgets , 31, 77 to public agencies, 206-208, 217, 220 religion, 114 research, 99, 103, 105, 114-115 financial, 73 rural, 32-33, 41 scholarships, 31 seed money, 74, 77, 94, 206, 299 social action, 61, 295 women's groups, 111, 163, 287, 292, 312 young adults, 99-100, 113-114 youth, 17-18, 36-39, 41-42, 44-45, 77-78, 83-89, 91, 242, 300-302 foundations , accessibility, 227, 305 accountability, 191 administration, 56, 64, 68, 78-79, 142-143, 159 advisors, 228 alternative, 298, 310-311 annual reports, 27, 41, 222, 304 applicants, 28, 30-33, 35-36, 38-39, 41-43, 59-61, 75-76, 85, 89, 96-97, J-10, 1-38, 143, 145-147, 156, 1-61, 1-63, 1-84, 211, 228-231, 284, 287-288, 294-295, 309 assistance to, 59-60, 69, 154, 190, 262 assets, 27, 56, 81, 88, 92, 140, 144n, 170, 193, 281, 285-286, 313 investment of, 27, 62-64, 92-93, 152-153, 182 awaxds, 221 bequests to, 73, 77, 79-80, 92, 110 community, 14, 16, 56, 193 company, 178-179, 204, 317 consultants , 172 criticisms of, 41-42, 61, 68, 89, 97, 136, 154-155, 189, 220, 283-285 donors, 15, 288, 310 evaluation of, 30, 34, 36-41, 52-54, 314 family, 47, 57, 180 grantees, 157, 245 , 289-291, 299, 304 grant-making procedures, 17, 19, 25-26, 30, 31, 35-38, 40 , 42, 44, 48-49, 52, 58, 62, 74-76, 79, 83-85, 89, 96-97, 107-108, 110,112, 143, 146, 151, 173, 180, 202, 244, 246, 288, 294-295 guidelines, 146, 155, 174, 246, 273, 297, 312-314 litigation, 21, 155 national, 114-115, 172, 229, 231, 310, 316 . See also Ford Foundation operating, 59 organizations , 69, 139, 190, 298-299 payout, 27-28, 92, 285-286, 312 private, 27, 32,33, 56, 58-61, 71, 73, 77, 88, 97-98 , 110-113, 297 regulation of, 74, 90, 92, 142, 171, 190, 290-292, 306-307 reporting, 95-96 staff, 33-36, 38-49, 52, 56-58, 60-61, 68, 75, 85, 95, 135-151, 154, 160-161, 166, 172, 175, 194, 199, 211, 214, 216, 223-224, 228, 283-284, 288-289, 314, 316 selection of, 65-67, 158 and taxation, 180, 183-184 trustees [directors], 23-32, 35, 38, 40-42, 45-46, 65-68, 71-72, 78-79, 85-86, 88-89, 93-97, 110-111,114, 136-137, 142-143, 146-147, 150-154, 160-161, 170, 172-174, 177, 199, 211, 282, 285, 288-289, 293-294, 305-3069 312, 314 conflict of interest, .25, 29, 49-50 representation, 134-137 selection of, 47-48, 50, 133-134 and youth, 288 Frankfurter, Felix, 6 Friedman, Bob, 282 Friends Outside, 37 e , w P., I,46

Gallegos , Herman, 47, 50, 64 Ganyard, Leslie, 17, 161 Garden Hospital, 134 Genesis Church, 298 Gerbode, Arthur, 180 Gerbode, Martha, 168 Gerbode family, 102, 180 Gerlinger, Irene Hazard, 120-121, 123 Getz, Clyde, 21 Gillette, Edmond S. , Jr. , 71-98 Girl Scouts of America, 140 Glaser, Robert, 79 Glas ser , Henry, 78 Glide Foundation, 202, 297-298 Glock, Charles Y., 99-115 Glock, Margaret (Mrs. Charles) , 101 Glover, Donald, 262 Glover, Rudy, 142, 260 Gofman, Skye, 110 Goldman, Doug, 282 Goldman, Rhoda, 135, 163 government , county, general assistance program, 20, 119, 128 federal, and foundations, 180-181, 184, 190, 192 funding, 145, 163, 207, 217-219, 225-226, 232, 250, 258 granting, 97-98, 99-100, 102-103, 105, 114, 184-185, 205-206 and philanthropy, 171, 183-184, 188 programs, 208, 243, 268-269 regulation, 71, 75, 80, 90-92, 113, 189, 212, 224, 290-292, 306-307 and social welfare , [see also HEW] funding, 7, 32, 42, 60-61 regulation, 28, 36, 44, 56, 60-61, 68-69 taxation, 188-189 local, 8-10, 18-22., 163 state, 12-13, 21, 32, 42, 68-69, 122, 127 funding, 163, 220 legislature, 126 regulation, 224 governor's conferences, 122-123 grantsmanship, 230 Gray Areas Project, Oakland, 103. See also Ford Foundation Guggenhime, Richard, 24, 29, 46 A Guide to California Foundations, 71, 73, 178 de Guigne, Christian, 138 Guyer, Cynthia, 282

Haas, Peter, 29, 46-47, 62-63, 68 Haas, Walter, 135 Haas family foundations, 47, 178 Hall, Ira, 135-138, 152-153 Hance, Eva, 9 Harris, Robert C. , 135 Hale, Vera, 251 Hallihan, Captain , 260 Hayes, Elystus, 119 Haymarket Foundation, 310 Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Department of, 228, 230, 233 Center for Disease Control, 225 Civil Rights Division, 212, 214 Experimental Schools, 208, 213 reading teams, 226 Henry, Lucille, 8 Hermann, Justin, 254 Hessy, Annie, 282 Hewlett , William, 137 Hills, Edward E., 81, 88 Hills Brothers, 81, 92 Hills family, 71 Hills, Edward E;., Fund, 71, 81, 92 Hinckley , Stewart, 126 Hincks , Hazel Pierce [Mrs. ~ercy], 119 hippies, 43-44 Hirschi, Travis, 105 Hitch, Charles, 200 Homewood Terrace, 2, 13 Hunter, Dave, 176 Hunter's Point, San Francisco, 247, 279

Internd Revenue Service, 44, 71, 80, 90-91, 290-292, 306-307 Irvine, Jack, 243n, 244, 276 Irvine, ~oan, 180 Irvine Foundation, 89, 95, 180

Jackson, Buddy, 208, 212, 214 Jacobs, Al, 169 Jacobs, Jean, 154 Jewish community, 1-4, 23 and philanthropy, 179 Jewish Community Center, 4-5, 8, 11, 25 Jewish Family Service Agency, 10 Jewish Home for the Aged, 1 Jewish Welfare Federation, 8 Johnson and Higgins , Inc ., 95 Jorgenson , Russell, 256 Junior League, 118, 123, 164 juvenile delinquency, 105, 154. See also youth

Kaiser Family Foundation, 79 Kaplan, Hyman, 10-11 Kennedy, Lucile , 21 Kirkwood, Robert, Sr., ~8-134 Kirkwood Award, 132 Koshland, Dani.el, Sr., 10-11, 15-16, 137, 152, 170 Koshland, Mrs. M. S., 4 KQED, 268 Kramer , Lawrence, 75-76, 85-86, 89, 95-96 Kramer, Blume and Associates, 75 Kritzfeld, Irving, 260 Kuhn, Jean Gerlinger, 116-167 children, 118, 124, 131-132 family, 140 Labor, U.S. Department of, 6, 212 labor unions, 269, 274, 280 agri cultural, 41 and education, 233-234 and employment , 87 Larson, Cressa, 245 League of Women Voters, 122-4, 133, 136-137, 164 Legal Aid Society, 124 legislation, social, federal, 6-7 state, 14, 21 Leong, Dawson, 252 "Levi Strauss group of foundations, " 47, 178-179 Levin, Judge , 253 Lilienthal , Sally, 162 Lilienthal , Sukey, 282, 308 Little , Arthur, Company, 158 Local Development Corporation, 270 Loewy, Emma [Mrs. Louis Blumenthal], 5 Log Cabin Ranch, San Francisco, 241-242 Los Angeles , California, 315 Luster, Orville, 86, 237-280 family, 266 Luttgens, Leslie [Mrs. William F.], 29, 46-47, 50, 62, 165, 178 LUX, Miranda, 83-84 Lux, Miranda, Foundation, 71-72, 75, 83-87, 93-94, 97 Lyman, Jing [Mrs. ~ichard], 47, 50

Mack, Charlotte, 56 MAMA (single mothers ' organization), 44-45 Manley, Jay, 207-210, 215-216 Manning, Seaton, 258, 262 Market Street Association, San Francisco, 169 Matthews , Phoebe [champlain], 9, 11 May, Jean, 228 May, JohnRickard, 1, 6,14-16, 69, ll4, 129, 132,136,138-139, 140, 142, 144, 153, 158-159, 168, 172, 175-176, 193-94, 208, 214, 223, 226, 228, 244, 256, 258-260, 262, 264-265, 276 May, Margarita, 15 McDonald's Corporation, 238, 266 McLaughlin, Emma Moffat [~rs.AlfYed], 123, 130, 133, 137 Meany, George, 274 Mellinkoff, Ed, 278 Merrill, Fred, 24, 27, 29 Mexican-Amricans, 41, 47, 64 and education, 208, 213-214 Miller (and LUX) families, 72, 83 Mills, Wilbur, 171 Minority Adoptive Recruitment of Children 's Homes (MARCH), 45 minority groups, 136, 143, 152 employment, 251-252 youth programs for, 85-87 see also under specific minority group Mission Rebels, 252, 268 Mitchell, Peewee, 252 Molkenbuhr , Judge , 118 Montalvo Association, 118-119, 130-131 Morrison [May T .I Rehabilitation Center, 134 Motown Records, 271 Murray, Mrs . 3 20

Nathan, Ed, 223 National Clearing House for Smoking and Health, 224-225 National. Endowment for the Arts, 162-163 National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), 99-100, 102-103, 105 National Jewish Welfare Fund, 2, 8 Native Sons and Daughters of the Golden West, 12 Nature Conservancy , 73 Negroes, 20, 42, 48, 101-103, 110, 136, 237, 293, 217 and business, 269-272 and educati on, 208, 212-214 and foundations, 316 leaders, 104, 275 in San Francisco, 258, 267 in social work, 238 Neighborhood House, North Richmond, 42-43, 101-105, 250 Neighborhood Youth Corps, 243, 250, 253 Neilsen ,Waldemar , 184 Network Against Psychiatric Assault, 300 nonprofit organizations, 1-5, 8, 18, 33, 62, 69, 98, 101, 156, 292 administration, 163 boards of directors, 11, 13, 22, 212, 249, 264-265 funding, 72, 76, 82, 96, 13.1-112, 118, 145, 157, 177-178, 186, 189, 193, 239-240, 257-258 273 and government programs, 192 grants by, 100 grassroots, 43-44, 50-54 organization of, 147, 241 program development, 102-105 relations between, 260 staff, 239-240, 249-254, 260, 265 tax exemption, 291 Oakes Foundation, 273 Oakland, Gray Areas Project, 103. See also Ford Foundation OIConnor, Judge , 255 Oehler, Fred, 119 Operation Freeze, 253 Opportunities Industrialization Center of America, Inc., 252 Oregon Foundation, 140-141 Orrick, William, 138, 162

Pacific Change, 297, 303 Paci fic Oaks School, 37 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 179, 251-252 Paley, Martin, 142, 158-160, 175, 223-224 Paradis, Daisy, 282 Parker, Tom, 208, 223 Patman Committee, l7l. Perkins, Frances, 6 Phelan, James D., ll8-119, 130-131 Phelan Trust, 130-13 philanthropy, 1-3, 8, 285 and government, 183-184 personal, 74, 77, 80-82, 88, 95, 98, 102, 110, 118, 130-131, 168, 179, 186, 239, 247-248, 261, 282-283 and t axation , 188-189 see also nonprofit organizations Pinkney, Percy, 263, 265 Planned Parenthood, 72, 77, 104-105 planning, city, 168-169, 195, 197-198, 200 social, 3, 10, 25, 28 Point Reyes Bird Observatory, 73-74, 91 Pomercry , Florette , 257 Pottinger, Stan, 213-214 poverty program, 268-269 Price , Courtney, 282 Price Administration, u.S. Office of, 4, 6, 10, 16 Prison Law Collective, 308 Public Dance Hall Committee, San Francisco, 8-9

Quakers, 241-242, 245, 254, 256-258, 275, 277-278 and minority communities, 101 see also American Friends Service Committee race relations, 42, 47-48, 54, 64-65, 168, 212-214, 242, 253-254, 259, 267-269 , 274-275, 293, 301, 317 prejudice, research on, 100, 115 school desegregation, 214 Rainbow Sign, Berkeley, 267 Randall, Josephine, 9 Reagan, Ronald, 32 Regional Young Adult Project, 297-298 Republican Assembly, California, 127 Republican party, 120, 127 Resources Exchange, 270, 302 Richmond, California, 42, 53 Neighborhood House, 42-43, 101-105, 250 Riles, Wilson, 200 Riles Commission, 199 Rockefeller, JohnD.,III, 171 Rockefeller Foundation, 113, 115, 227 intern, 227 Rockefeller, John D. , 111, Fund, 302 Rosenberg , Abraham, 129 Rosenberg, Mrs. Abraham, 129 Rosenberg, Max, 129-130 Rosenberg Foundation, 17, 18-19, 23 passim, 86, 89-90, 95, 99 , 101-102 , 106, 112-113, 129-130, 139, 153, 161, 171-181, 184-186, 190, 193-194 , 198-202, 204-207, 215, 224, 231, 242, 250, 258, 261, 283, 301. See also under foundations and foundation grants Roth, Joan, 199, 202 Roth, Maggie, 175, 201, 282 Roth, William Matson, 29, 46-47, 62, 168-202 Roth , Lurline , Foundation, 180 Rumph, Charles, 69 Russell, Christine, 282 Russell, Madeleine Haas, 168, 180

Sacramento, California, 122-124, 128 Salvation Army, 2 Sams, Doris, 142 San Francisco, city and county, 118, 123, 128, 130, 133-134, 137, 237-238, 272 Coordinating Council, 8-10 courts, 254 funding, city, 163 Ghirardelli Square, 198 Haight-Ashbury , 43 Hunter's Point, 247, 279 Log Cabin Ranch, 241-242 Planning Cornmi ssion , 169, 197 Police Department, 253 Probation Department, 237 public schools, 199-200 Public Utilities Commission, 127 Public Welfare Commission, 10, 17-23 redevelopment, 273, 280 Sheriff's Department, 237 social services, 241 Sunset-Parkside Education and Action Committee, 37 urban renewal, 196-198 Youth Council, 243 San Francisco Art Institute, 118 San Francisco Federated Fund, 26 San Francisco Foundation, 14-17, 56, 89, 94-95 , 114, 129-167, 168, 172-173, 175-176, 180, 194, 200, 204, 206-208, 214-215, 228, 231, 242, 256, 258-259, 261-262, 270, 283-284 annual report, 169, 221 appointing authorities, 133, 136 awards, 131-132, 263 Distribution Committee, 131-133, 135-137, 142-145, 148-151, 153, 155, 161, 166, 170, 192-194, 284 trustees committee, 153 see also under foundations and foundation grants San Francisco Mime Troupe, 314 San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association [SPUR], 168-170, 195-196 San Francisco State College, 186, 238, 258 San Joaquin Valley, California, 32, 41, 66 San Mateo County, 19 Santa Clara county, 118-119, 128, 144 charter revision, 128 community trust, 144 Self Help for the Elderly, 251 Selznick, Gertrude, 99-100 Shaheen, Tom, 232 Shelley, John, 169, 253 Sherman, Lily Margaret, 117 Sherwin, Marvin, 126 Simeon, Shirley, 230 Singleton, Zeke, 251, 257, 266 Sloss, Eleanor [Mrs. rank] , 15, 24 Sloss, Eleanor Fleishhacker, 23, 24, 29 Sloss, Frank, 1-70 Sloss, Leon, Jr. , 23 Sloss family [~r.and Mrs. M.C. 1, 1-2, 4, 7, 14 Smith, Jacqueline, 20 Smith, Josh, 216 Smith, Norvel L. , 48 social change, 150, 155-156, 175, 179, 185, 202, 284-295, 301-306, 313, 317 institutional, 219, 221, 232-235 social responsibility, 272, 281, 285 Social Security Administration, 1, 6-7, 18 social welfare, 18-21, 44-45, 51 Social Welfare, California State Board of, 35 social work, 237-238, 242 Solomon, Emmett G. , 137, 154, 162 Sorenson, Harvey L. , 71, 77-80, 88 Sorenson, Harvey L. and Maud S. , Foundation, 71, 77-80 , 88, 93 Sorenson, Roy, 24-25, 46, 49 Southern Pacific Company, 179 Specht , Harry, 103-104 Stanford University, 129, 136-137, 144 board of trustees, 29, 46, 49, 152, 165 Stephenson, E. P. (~ed), 42, 101-104, 250 Sterling, Wallace, 200 Stern, Carl, Jr. , 282 Stern, Peter, 281-317 Stern, Mrs. Sigmund, 4 Stern family foundations, 47, 176, 185 Sullivan, Jerd, Center, 134 Sullivan, Neil, 240 Surrey, stan, 183, 188 Swindells , William, 140-141

Tax Reform Act, 1969 [TM], 28, 33, 36, 56, 60-61, 69, 92, 113, 142, 171, 176, 189-90, 290-291 Teachers for the Real World, 210 Thiebaut , Akland, 270 Thierman, Steve, 256-257 Third World Control Project, 297 Third World Fund, 298, 305 Thurman, Howard, 275-278 Town School, 81, 283 Trout Unlimited, 73, 90 Tyree, Quetta, 252

United Bay Area Crusade, 3, 18, 26, 50, 54, 60, 72, 82, 86, 124 , 134, 137 145 178-179, 193, 243, 256-258. See also United Community Fund, 19 Bay Area Social Planning Council, 137 United Community Fund, 19. See also United Bay Area Crusade United Grocers, 78 University of California, 29, 117, 120, 182, 251 Berkeley, School of Education, 103, 219 field studies in grant-making, 107-108 intern program, 207 School of Social Welfare, 103 Survey Research Center, 99, 101-103 Torch and Shield, 117 YWCA (stiles all) , 116-117 Regents, 107-108, 197-198, 201 Santa Cruz, 75, 273 Oakes College, 144 UCLA, 208 teacher intern program, 207-209, 219 University of Michigan, 189 Urban League, 241, 258, 262

Vanguard Foundation, 59, 175, 180, 185, 201, 281-317 van Loben Sels Foundation, 176 Vasconcellos, John, 123 volunteers , in community service, 163-166 and public policy, 192, 195-197, 272 voter registration, 61

Waite, Sherry, 251 Walker, Brooks, Jr., 135, 152 Warren, Earl, 126 Waters, Laughlin , 126 Waters, Malcolm, 24-26, 36, 38, 46, 48 Wente, Karl, 88 Weston, Will, 119 White, Lew, 140-142, 153-155 , 157, 166, 260 Whitman, Fred, 24, 26, 46 Wilson, Alan, 103-105 Wilson, Kirke, 30, 33, 62, 66-68, 175, 224 Witter, Dean, 71, 73-74, 80 Witter, Dean, Foundation, 71, 73-74, 79, 89 , 92-93, 96-97 Wolins, Martin, 103-104 women , and foundat ions, 163, 165, 293 in professions, 6, 9, 20, 65-67 , 117 in politics, 120 as volunteer leaders, 24, 29, 44, 50, 119, 134-135 World Affairs Council, 134 World War 11, effects of, 2, 10, 12, 14 Wyzanski, Charles E. , Jr. , 6-7

Ylvisaker, Paul, 103 Young Democrats, 238 YMCA, 2, 25, 72 YWCA, 85, 116 youth, attitudes of, 17, 34, 253, 300-302 correct ions, 237 dependent , 155 and education, 109, 234-236 leadership, 39, 42-44, 47, 50-51, 54, 65, 107-108, 112, 137, 175, 201, 227, 273, 281 organizations for, 186-187 and philanthropy, 281-317, 303 services, 8-14, 18-21, 25, 36, 44, 102, 110-111, 123 in social work. 278

budget, 240 building program, 237, 239, 247-248, 264-265 job development, 258 streetwork program, 241 work program, 279

Zellerbach Family Fund, 178-179, 204, 223, 231, 283 Gabrielle Morris

B.A. in economics, Connecticut College, New London ; independent study in journalism, creative writing.

Historian, U.S. Air Force in England, covering Be~linAir Lift,.military agreements, personnel studies, 1951-52.

Chief of radio, TV, public relations, major New England department store; copy chief, network radio and TV station in Hartford, Connec- ticut ; freelance theatrical publicity and historical articles, 1953-55.

Research, interviewing, editing, community planning in child guidance, mental health, school planning, civic unrest, for University of California, Berkeley Unified School District, Bay Area Social Planning Council, League of Women Voters, 1956-70.

Research, interviewing, editing on state administration, civic affairs, and industry, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley, 1970-present.