Community Foundations: Rooted locally. Growing globally

8/13/2019 Community Foundations: Rooted locally. Growing globally.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/community-foundations-rooted-locally-growing-globally 1/842012 Annual Report a

2012 ANNUAL REPORT

Rooted Locally. Growing Globally.C O M M U N I T Y F O U N D A T I O N S :


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/community-foundations-rooted-locally-growing-globally 2/84



2012 Annual Report 1

Table of Contents

OUR FOUNDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

OUR VALUES, OUR CODE OF ETHICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PROGRAM SNAPSHOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ANNUAL MESSAGE : A simple yet enduring idea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

SPECIAL SECTION : Rooted Locally. Growing Globally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Chart: Defining a Community Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

A philanthropic approach with global appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Map: Mott’s Grantmaking Seeds Global Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Local funder responds to needs and empowers residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Community foundations work together to tackle regional issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Cultivating the charitable impulse countrywide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

The final word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

PROGRAMS & GRANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Civil Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Flint Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Pathways Out of Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Exploratory & Special Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Employee/Trustee Matching and Trustee–Initiated Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

FINANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

TRUSTEES & STAFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Board and Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Officers and Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

This entire report is available on Mott’s Web site. Visit: www.mott.org/AR20 12 .



2 Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

OUR FOUNDER

“It seems to me that every person, always, is in a kind of informalpartnership with his community. His own success is dependent toa large degree on that community, and the community, after all, is

the sum total of the individuals who make it up. The institutions of acommunity, in turn, are the means by which those individuals expresstheir faith, their ideals and their concern for fellow men ….

“So broad and so deep are the objectives of the Mott Foundation thatthey touch almost every aspect of living, increasing the capacity foraccomplishment, the appreciation of values and the understanding ofthe forces that make up the world we live in. In this sense, it may trulybe called a Foundation for Living – with the ultimate aim of developinggreater understanding among men.

“We recognize that our obligation to fellow men does not stop at theboundaries of the community. In an even larger sense, every man isin partnership with the rest of the human race in the eternal conquestwhich we call civilization.”

Charles Stewart Mott (1875 -1973), who established this Foundation in1926, was deeply concerned from his earliest years in Flint, Michigan,with the welfare of his adopted community.

Soon after he had become one of the city’s leading industrialists, this

General Motors pioneer found a practical and successful way to expresshis interest. He served three terms as mayor (in 1912, 1913 and 1918)during a period when the swiftly growing city was beset with problems,with 40,000 people sharing facilities adequate for only 10,000.

As a private citizen, he started a medical and dental clinic for childrenand helped establish the YMCA and the Boy Scouts, along with theWhaley Children’s Center, in Flint.

Nine years after the Foundation was incorporated for philanthropic,charitable and educational purposes, it became a major factor in the lifeof Flint through organized schoolground recreational activities, whichdeveloped into the nationwide community school/education program.

From this start, the Foundation’s major concern has been the well -being ofthe community, including the individual, the family, the neighborhood andthe systems of government. This interest has continued to find expressionin Flint and also has taken the Foundation far beyond its home city, as thecontent of this annual report makes clear.




OUR VALUES

Charles Stewart Mott’s central belief in the partnership of humanity was the basis upon whichthe Foundation was established. While this remains the guiding principle of its grantmaking, theFoundation has refined and broadened its grantmaking over time to reflect changing national andworld conditions.

Through its programs of Civil Society, Environment, Flint Area and Pathways Out of Poverty, andtheir more specific program areas, the Foundation seeks to fulfill its mission of supporting effortsthat promote a just, equitable and sustainable society.

Inherent in all grantmaking is the desire to enhance the capacity of individuals, families orinstitutions at the local level and beyond. The Foundation hopes that its collective work in anyprogram area will lead toward systemic change.

Fundamental to all Mott grantmaking are certain values:● Nurturing strong, self -reliant individuals with expanded capacity for accomplishment;● Learning how people can live together to create a sense of community, whether at the

neighborhood level or as a global society;● Building strong communities through collaboration to provide a basis for positive change;● Encouraging responsible citizen participation to help foster social cohesion;● Promoting the social, economic and political empowerment of all individuals and communities

to preserve fundamental democratic principles and rights;● Developing leadership to build upon the needs and values of people and to inspire the

aspirations and potential of others; and● Respecting the diversity of life to maintain a sustainable human and physical environment.

OUR CODE OF ETHICS

Respect for the communities we work with and serve;

Integrity in our actions;

Responsibility for our decisions and their consequences. We are committed to act honestly, truthfully and with integrity in all our transactionsand dealings. We are committed to avoid conflicts of interest and to the appropriate handling of actual orapparent conflicts of interest in our relationships. We are committed to treat our grantees fairly and to treat every individual with dignity andrespect. We are committed to treat our employees with respect, fairness and good faith and to provideconditions of employment that safeguard their rights and welfare. We are committed to be a good corporate citizen and to comply with both the spirit andthe letter of the law. We are committed to act responsibly toward the communities in which we work and forthe benefit of the communities that we serve. We are committed to be responsible, transparent and accountable for all of our actions. We are committed to improve the accountability, transparency, ethical conduct andeffectiveness of the nonprofit field.




Program SnapshotVision: The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation affirms its founder’s vision of a worldin which each of us is in partnership with the rest of the human race — where eachindividual’s quality of life is connected to the well -being of the community, bothlocally and globally. We pursue this vision through creative grantmaking, thoughtfulcommunication and other activities that enhance community in its many forms.The same vision of shared learning shapes our internal culture as we strive tomaintain an ethic of respect, integrity and responsibility. The Foundation seeks tostrengthen, in people and their organizations, what Mr. Mott called “the capacity foraccomplishment.”

Mission: To support efforts that promote a just, equitable and sustainable society.

CIVIL SOCIETY

Mission: To strengthen philanthropy and thenonprofit sector as vital vehicles for increasingcivic engagement and improving communitiesand societies.

PROGRAM AREAS: Central/Eastern Europe and Russia South Africa United States Global Philanthropy and Nonprofit Sector

ENVIRONMENT

Mission: To support the efforts of an engagedcitizenry working to create accountable andresponsive institutions, sound public policies andappropriate models of development that protectthe diversity and integrity of selected ecosystemsin North America and around the world.

PROGRAM AREAS: Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystems International Finance for Sustainability

Special Initiatives

FLINT AREA

Mission: To foster a well -functioning, connectedcommunity that is capable of meeting theeconomic, social and racial challenges ahead.

PROGRAM AREAS: Arts, Culture and Education Economic Revitalization Strengthening Community Special Initiatives

PATHWAYS OUT OF POVERTYMission: To identify, test and help sustainpathways out of poverty for low -income peopleand communities.

PROGRAM AREAS: Improving Community Education Expanding Economic Opportunity Building Organized Communities Special Initiatives

EXPLORATORY & SPECIAL PROJECTS

Mission: To support unusual or uniqueopportunities addressing significant national andinternational problems. (Proposals are by invitationonly; unsolicited proposals are discouraged.)



Annual Message




Focusing on the community foundation movementfelt like a natural topic for this year’s annual report,what with our hometown community foundationcelebrating its 25th anniversary in early 2013and the U.S. field poised to celebrate its 100thanniversary in 2014.

Both o these milestones have given us plenty o opportunities over thecourse o this year to reect on the value o community oundations: whythey have endured; how they tap a natural charitable impulse in people; thebenets they bring to the communities they serve; and how and why the MottFoundation has maintained its support or the eld or some 33 years — evenlonger i you actor in our experiences in Flint.

Given that long-term involvement, we eel we have much to shareon the subject. Trough the years, we’ve implemented a number odifferent grantmaking strategies and approaches to orti ying bothindividual community oundations and the broader eld. And we’velearned some important lessons rom those experiences that we thinkare worth sharing.

In writing this, I eel as though I may be preaching to the choir. Somereaders surely are very amiliar with community oundations, having undedor worked with them in some capacity over time. But others, who are new tothe eld or considering whether to venture into it, hope ully will nd some value in reading about our experiences in the pages that ollow.

We at Mott have long been impressed by the simplicity and the power thatunderlies the community oundation concept, which is to create a local vehicle

that can empower the residents o a community to support causes close tohome and close to the heart.

I rst became acquainted with the community oundation idea in the1970s when I was asked to join the board o the Flint Public rust, which wascreated in 1950. In those days, the rust had assets o less than $1 million and,as a result, a very small giving program.

Not long afer I joined, I began thinking about ways to possibly honor Dr.Arthur L. uuri, then head o the Flint-based Mott Children’s Health Center.Among the options was to establish a special, local health und, but, ultimately,

A simple yet enduring idea





the Mott Foundation decided to make a $1.5 millionchallenge grant in 1978 to help establish the Flint AreaHealth Foundation.

A decade later, it was apparent that Flintactually had two small community oundations —the rust and the health oundation — which, icombined, could be better positioned or growthand could have greater impact on the communitythrough its grantmaking. In 1988, the twoorganizations merged, resulting in the creation o

the Community Foundation o Greater Flint, whichremains a vital entity in our community today, aswell as a Mott grantee.

Recognizing that many communities aroundthe country had the population base and

the wealth to support a dynamic communityoundation — yet or various reasons did not

have one — in 1979, Mott launched the rst owhat would become several grantmaking effortsover time to support the eld’s development, rstnationally and, later, internationally.

Initially, our grantmaking was designed tohelp a limited number o struggling community

oundations in the U.S. with administrative unds,support or specic projects and endowmentchallenge grants.

At roughly the same time, Eugene C. Struckhoff,who had played a lead role in creating the NewHampshire Charitable Foundation in 1962, wasgaining a substantial reputation as an expert incommunity oundations. His publication, “TeHandbook or Community Foundations: TeirFormation, Development and Operation,” urtherestablished his expertise and became an importantresource or those working in the eld.

By the early 1980s, Struckhoff — or “Struck”

as he was affectionately known — began workingas a technical assistance provider to communityoundations through the Council on Foundations

(COF), while also running the CommunityFoundation o the Greater Baltimore Area.

And so our second program to supportcommunity oundations was launched in 1982when we joined orces with COF to developa technical assistance program or about 75community oundations initially that providedone-on-one consulting with Struckhoff and othertrained pro essionals.1

Trough the COF/Mott technical assistanceprogram, community oundations learned howto develop staff, boards, donors, endowments,grantmaking programs and marketing strategies.Tat program, as well as Struckhoff ’s ongoing work in

“We at Mott have long been impressed by the simplicity

and the power that underlies the community foundation

concept, which is to create a local vehicle that can

empower the residents of a community to support

causes close to home and close to the heart.”

1Among the consultants who provided technical assistance at various times were: Helen Monroe, Bill Somerville, David Huntington, R. Malcolm Salter,Jack Shakely, Stephen D. Mittenthal, Douglas Jansson and Paul Verret.




the eld, led to his becoming known as the “JohnnyAppleseed o community oundations.”

His work also led him to develop a theory thatcommunity oundations just starting out or withassets under $5 million needed to conduct aggressive

undraising campaigns to attract $5 million in

unrestricted unds within ve years. o Struckhoff, $5million represented the “take-off point” afer whichassets typically would soar.

o me, that “take-off point” seemed valid and ashorthand way o saying: Locally based institutionswill be able to attract sufficient nancial supporti they are representative o the community; havea strong board; are knowledgeable about thecommunity’s challenges; and are perceived as goodstewards o resources. Simply put: Developing atrack record o success — and trust — enables anorganization to take off.

And, once it does, there are many importantroles a community oundation can play. Te MottFoundation, or instance, ound itsel teaming upwith community oundations on something calledthe “Neighborhood Small Grants Program” between1984 and 1994. (Ultimately, we supported similarpartnerships with other community oundations

ocused on the environment, violence prevention andrace relations. One such example is eatured later inthis publication.)

Trough the Neighborhood Small GrantsProgram, a select group o community oundationsreceived relatively small grants rom the MottFoundation that they matched and then used ormini-grants to support resident-generated projectsin low-income neighborhoods. In addition,participating oundations took part in a national

network that provided a common evaluation plan,technical assistance and periodic meetings onneighborhood issues.

For Mott, the program had the benet oallowing us to marry two o our internal interests:support or community oundations and support or

neighborhood development. For the participatingcommunity oundations, it was ofen their rst oray— and an enriching one — into working intenselywith grassroots groups in their backyard.

As I look back today on the lessons romthat program, it seems to me that you can end upwith a really rich experience when you create acollaboration in which a national under providessome resources — research, technical assistance,evaluation tools and so orth — and the community

oundation brings its own unique perspective andskills to the table. Moreover, the odds are that ithe problem being addressed continues to exist,the local under will continue the work well intothe uture, even without ongoing national undingand support.

And, to me, that underscores another strength othe community oundation: It’s a permanent xturein the community that can address local problemswith local resources. I know the Mott Foundation,like a lot o other oundations, rom time to time hasparachuted into local communities, unded programs

or a while, and departed. But, the beauty o thecommunity oundation is that it remains.

We’ve long appreciated the “staying power” ocommunity oundations, which is just one o thereasons we’ve embraced certain opportunities throughthe years to help the concept spread, includinginternationally.

“Hopefully, even more young people will take an interest

in this work. After all, engaging young people in

philanthropy is how we pass a dream on from one

generation to the next.”




I am reminded, or instance, oa request we received in 1988 romMichael Brophy, then-chie executive othe Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) inthe United Kingdom, to join other U.S.

unders in bolstering the U.K. eld with

technical assistance grants.Tat venture — which involvedusing some o the same technicalassistance providers that had helpedthe U.S. eld grow — was so success ulthat Mott offered a challenge to CAFin late 1990. Te Foundation wouldprovide 1 million pounds to support thedevelopment o U.K. community trustsand oundations with the expectationthat CAF would match it. Te resulting2 million pounds would then be usedto create a second pool o challenge

unds to be divided into three grantsand awarded on a competitive basis to three Britishcommunity oundations. Tose recipients wereexpected to match the award on a 2:1 basis toestablish permanent endowments.

Ultimately, 10 community oundationssubmitted proposals and three were chosen: yne& Wear Foundation, Greater Bristol Foundationand the Cleveland Community (Middlesbrough)Foundation. I’m pleased to say that the yne &Wear Foundation, one o the rst community

oundations in the U.K., today has an endowment o53 million pounds; the Greater Bristol Foundation,now known as the Quartet Foundation, has apermanent endowment o 19.5 million pounds;and the Cleveland oundation, which became the

ees Valley Community Foundation about a decadeago, has a 12 million pound endowment withexpectations to reach more than 15 million poundsin the coming months.

Interestingly, one o the oundations thatparticipated in the rigorous application process,but was not awarded a grant, ound that theextensive planning and technical assistancerequired to apply had been so use ul that leaderswere emboldened to take up the endowmentchallenge on their own.

In a sense, one might say that we began ourcommunity oundation work in the U.K. in

response to a unique window o opportunity.Similarly, when such seismic global events asthe all o the Berlin Wall and the legal end oapartheid in South A rica were occurring, itstruck us that community oundations couldbe important vehicles or civic engagement andcommunity improvement.

Endowment challenge grants, technicalassistance, partnering with community oundations— these are only a ew o the ways we’ve helpedstrengthen the eld. Trough the years, we’vealso provided grants designed to: develop andstrengthen support organizations in the U.S. andaround the world; conduct and share research andlessons learned; provide international ellowshipsand exchanges; and strengthen and expand youthgrantmaking programs.

In the pages that ollow — as well as on ourWeb site — you’ll nd more about the MottFoundation’s involvement with community

oundations, including more lessons we’ve learned,and examples rom around the world o exemplarywork undertaken by both individual community

oundations and support organizations working tobolster the eld.

Learning about philanthropy and how to be of service are part

of what young people gain through participation in the GrandRapids Community Foundation’s Youth Grant Committee.




Clearly, support or community oundationshas been one o our enduring unding interests.All told, we have made 781 grants totaling $150.4million to the eld through 2012. But we certainlyhaven’t gone it alone. Over time, there have beensome outstanding oundations working with us in

this effort.Furthermore, we’ve noted with interest that thework we and others have supported across the globeis resulting in new approaches and models that arebroadening the concept o a community oundation.While, historically, the Mott Foundation’s lens has

been on place-based, community oundations,we recognize that there are other viable orms ocommunity philanthropy, including giving circles,United Ways, social venture unds, online giving,religious institutions and others — many o whichwe have unded. Te bottom line is to generate local

resources or local needs.Inevitably, there will be more changes ahead asnew players enter the eld in new places around theglobe. And, hope ully, even more young people willtake an interest in this work. Afer all, engaging youngpeople in philanthropy is how we pass a dream on

rom one generation to the next.Strong community oundations are much more

than scal agents — as important as that unction maybe. Tey are an ideal place or diverse interests anddifferent voices to come together, a place where hopecan bloom.

Governance and AdministrationIn 2012, we realized a modest increase in assets,

which totaled $2.3 billion on Dec. 31, 2012, comparedwith $2.16 billion the year be ore. On the ollowingpage, we have included a chart labeled “ otal assets atmarket value & 2012 dollars,” which tracks our assetper ormance since 1963.

On Jan. 1, 2013, Douglas X. Patiño rejoined theFoundation’s Board o rustees, although one couldargue that his emeritus status the previous two yearsmeant he never truly lef our organization. Douglaswas a trustee rom 1995 through 2010 be ore he waselected rustee Emeritus beginning in 2011.

Douglas brings to the board not only his wisecounsel, thought ul opinions and genial manner,but also decades o much valued experience in thepublic, private and nonprot sectors, includingserving as the ounding President and ChieExecutive Officer o the Marin County CommunityFoundation in his home state o Cali ornia. Weare delighted that Douglas is once again ableto regularly participate in our meetings anddeliberations.

We also have seen the retirements o three long-time employees. Eve C. Brown, our librarian o 38years, retired on Sept. 30, 2012; Michael J. Smith, vice president o investments and chie investment

CUMULATIVE GRANT DOLLARS 1979 -2012 (in millions)

CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF GRANTS 1979 -2012

*Includes five Flint area grants made prior to 1979.

CHARLES STEWART MOTT FOUNDATIONSUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS

$150

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

$120

$ 1 90

$ 1 60

$ 1 30

1979*

1979*

1985

1985

1990

1990

1995

1995

2000

2000

2005

2005

2012

2012




officer, retired on Dec. 31, 2012, afer 35 years withthe Foundation; and Lesle Berent retired rom herposition as senior accountant on Feb. 15, 2013, afer33 years on our staff.

Eve, the typical quiet librarian, amazed hercolleagues by routinely nding exactly the right

in ormation, despite being given the vaguest ore erences to go on. She had an encyclopedicknowledge o the Foundation — and the manybooks, papers, clippings, reports and assortedother materials contained in both our library andour archives. Hired in 1974, she was responsible

or creating the Foundation’s original library andour centralized ling system. With her retirement,Glen A. Birdsall, who worked with Eve or 14years, was promoted rom Associate Librarianto Librarian.

Mike Smith joined the Foundation’s Detroit-based investment office in 1978 as an investmentmanager and was promoted several times over theyears be ore assuming the top position inour investment office in 2006. Mike was responsible

or helping us transition to a broadly diversiedport olio. Although his long career meant he wouldexperience some nerve-wracking highs and lowsin the nancial markets, Mike maintained a quiet,calm demeanor through it all. Much appreciated orhis willingness to listen and delegate, Mike was ateam builder who created a supportive and collegialworking environment or his staff.

Succeeding Mike as Vice President-Investmentsand Chie Investment Officer is Jay C. Flaherty, who joined our investment office in 2007. He was named anassistant vice president in March 2012.

We were ortunate to have an outstandinginternal candidate to step into such an importantleadership position. Jay was able to bring with him notonly an impressive nancial background, but also a

valuable amiliarity with the general operation o theinvestment office.

Finally, early in 2013, Lesle Berent lef ouraccounting department afer a long career. Lesle wasone o a number o quiet, behind-the-scenes Mottemployees who ensure that things run smoothly —and know how to competently put them right whenthey don’t.

Te institutional memory that lef ourorganization with these three employees will beimpossible to replace. Still, we wish them all the bestin their retirements and thank them again or theirdedication and hard work through the years.

William S. White, President

Total assets at market value & 2012 dollars(in millions)

TOTAL ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS IN 2012 DOLLARS

$4,000

$3,500

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$01963 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 201

$2,741,563,996

$365,382,658

$2,301,140






GLOBAL GROWTHOF COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONSAlthough a community foundation was developed in Canadaonly seven years after the concept was birthed in 1914, signsof rapid and continuous growth outside the U.S. were notevident until the early 2000s, when the number stood at 905 .Ten years later, the number had nearly doubled to 1,680 andtoday is approximately 1,750.

LOCAL RESPONDERMarshals local people and groups

to provide funds that respondto local issues, such as

education, poverty, health,community development

and others.

ADVOCATETakes a leadership role withthe public, as well as localor national authorities, on

issues important tothe community.

BRIDGE BUILDERCreates links between differentgroups or sectors, particularly

when there is a climate ofpublic distrustin institutions.

WISE STEWARDAttracts and pools resources

for the public good — for todayand in perpetuity — and

distributes those resourcesopenly and transparently.

LOCAL GRANTMAKERAccumulates financial resources

from a variety of donors, includinglocal individuals and companies,

diaspora populations,government bodies andinternational funders.

Today, there are approximately 700 communityfoundations in the U.S., 259 in Germany, 187 inCanada, 54 in the United Kingdom and another

550-plus elsewhere in the world for a combinedtotal of about 1,750 community foundations

globally. These local philanthropic institutionscan be found on every continent exceptAntarctica and in more than 50 countries.

COMMUNITYFOUNDATIONSGLOBALLY1,750

Defining a Community Foundation

2012201020082006200420022000

Source: Compiled from data obtained from WINGS’ Global Status Reporton Community Foundations and from the Global Fund for CommunityFoundations.

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

1,800



1950CONCEPT IS SEEDED AT HOMEMott helps establish the Flint Public Trust,providing a vehicle for individuals, businessesand institutions to pool funding for programsthat benefit the Foundation’s home community.

1979CULTIVATING THEFIELD NATIONWIDEMott begins makingtechnical assistanceand endowment grantsto help develop and strengthen the

community foundation field in the U.S.

1978HEALTH FOUNDATION CREATED IN FLINTFunded largely by Mott and led by Dr. ArthurL. Tuuri, the Flint Area Health Foundationis launched to support health services,education and research in Genesee County.

1950

S urely part of what makes a community foundation so appealing is its simplicity.Although there are many definitions of a community foundation, at its most basic,it is an institution of the community and for the community in which a wide range

of residents work together to create long -term strategies and solutions for developingvibrant, sustainable communities — and they use local resources gathered from a

diverse donor base to do it.In practical terms, that means community

oundations should be quite good at: knowing theircommunity’s strengths and challenges; leading effectiveresponses to local issues; serving as conveners; buildingpartnerships between disparate parties; poolingresources rom inside and outside their communities;engaging a diversity o residents; engendering trust;and acting as on-the-ground “eyes and ears” orregional, national and international unders.

As the concept travels around the world, it isshaped to t specic cultures and contexts. Tere is noone-size-ts-all approach. Instead, the grantmakingand day-to-day operations play out differently, whetherin South A rica at the West Coast CommunityFoundation or in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the

uzla Community Foundation or in the U.S. at theCommunity Foundation or the National CapitalRegion — three oundations that are eatured in thepages that ollow and on our Web site.

Still, what links these and all community

oundations is their sense o purpose, which is toimprove lives and communities.

MOTT’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FIELDTe Mott Foundation’s interest in the power and

possibilities o community oundations was piquedby a series o grants beginning in the 1950s in theFoundation’s hometown o Flint, Michigan. Tose

grants, given to the Flint Public rust, provided theFoundation with an opportunity to observe andlearn how these institutions can serve as “a differentphilanthropic voice,” one that provides space or adiversity o interests and ways o thinking about acommunity’s strengths and challenges.

A community approach to grantmaking has beena signature strategy o the Mott Foundation, and theconcept o a “people’s philanthropy” — neighbors

giving to help neighbors — aligns naturally with thismission. In 1979, seven community oundations —including the Flint Public rust — were selected toparticipate in Mott’s rst national program o technicalassistance and capacity building or small and growingcommunity oundations.

Over time, the Foundation continued tosupport the national expansion o community

oundations, building both the capacity andendowments o these institutions, and utilizingtheir knowledge o their home communities to

und national and regional programs to revitalizeneighborhoods, improve race relations, prevent violence and protect the environment.

Te Foundation’s rst major oray into supportingcommunity oundations internationally occurred in1988 when the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF), aphilanthropy support organization based in England,approached Mott about unding a technical assistanceprogram or emerging community oundations in


Mott’sContributions

to theCommunityFoundation

Field



1992FOSTERING GROWTH, SUSTAINABILITYTo help strengthen and develop the field, Mottbegins making grants to community foundationsupport organizations. Later research points to suchorganizations as the single best predictor of futuregrowth in the sector.

1988APPROACH BLOSSOMS IN FLINT; GRANTS GO GLOBALWith Mott leadership and support, the CommunityFoundation of Greater Flint is created through amerger of the Flint Public Trust and Flint Area HealthFoundation. This same year, Mott makes first overseasgrants — providing technical assistance to community

foundations in the United Kingdom (U.K.).

1984FORTIFYING THE GRASSROOTSMott funds eight U.S. communityfoundations to make local grantsaimed at improving neighborhoods;the program eventually grows to 25community foundations.

1990CANADA, U.K. WELCOME IDEAMott begins making grants to build the field in Canada atthe local and, in later years, national levels. Endowmentgrants this same year for three community foundations inthe U.K. spark interest and eventual expansion of the field inEngland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

1980

the United Kingdom. On the heels o that success uleffort, Mott initiated an endowment-building challengegrant program through CAF in 1990 and, by 1992,was supporting the Community Foundation Network(now known as UK Community Foundations), amembership organization created in 1991 to support

the growth and stability o the eld in the U.K.Fairly quickly, the Foundation recognized thatsupport organizations and grantmaker associationscould be excellent tools or spreading andstrengthening the community oundation eld. And,indeed, Mott’s strategies in support o community

oundations began to reect that, with grants beingmade to various organizations at home and abroad thatcould help develop and uni y the eld.

Mott’s grantmaking to support individualcommunity oundations as well as the eld and its

in rastructure is detailed in the timeline that starts atthe bottom o the previous page and continues on thepages that ollow. ogether, the entries tell a rich storyabout Mott’s many contributions to the eld throughthe years — a story that by 2012 involved more than781 grants totaling $150.4 million.

MOTT’S CURRENT FOCUSAs the community oundation eld has

ourished and matured over time, Mott’s ocus

has largely shifed away rom making grants toseed and strengthen individual community

oundations, with a ew notable exceptions suchas the community oundation in Mott’s hometown.It is also worth noting that, rom time to time,all our o the Foundation’s grantmaking areas haveworked with community oundations as granteesor collaborative partners on issues related toprogram strategies.

oday, the Foundation’s emphasis is on buildingthe eld more broadly by unding three primaryareas — leadership development, national and globalsupport organizations, and research and lessonslearned. Examples rom each o these areas arehighlighted below.

Leadership developmentMott supports a variety o initiatives to develop

community oundation leaders at home and abroad.One example is CFLeads, a U.S. national networkthat helps develop the leadership skills o individualcommunity oundation staff while also building theorganizational strength o community oundationsby offering Webinars, con erences, print and onlinepublications, peer-learning experiences and otherservices.

Additionally, the Emerging Leaders InternationalFellows Program at Te Center on Philanthropy andCivil Society provides opportunities or community

oundation practitioners rom around the world tolearn about the eld rom each other and specialists.Based at the Graduate Center o the City Universityo New York, ellows participate in an intensive three-month program o research, seminars, con erences,mentoring and internships. ogether, they study thetrends and practices o indigenous, place-based givingwithin the global philanthropic sector. Fellows also

design and pursue an individualized research project.Since its inception in 1989, the program has graduatedabout 200 alumni rom more than 50 countries.Among others, ellows have come rom Brazil, CzechRepublic, India, Italy, Kenya, New Zealand, Romaniaand the U.S.

As the community oundation concept was takingroot in Western, Eastern and Central Europe, Mottpartnered with the Germany-based Bertelsmann




1995CONCEPT SPREADS TO NEW REGIONSMott makes a grant to the Healthy City Community Foundation, whichwas established in 1994 in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia. The Foundation’ssupport for the field in Central/Eastern Europe ultimately extends toseveral countries in the region. Also in 1995, Mott provides a grant tohelp grow the emerging fields in Australia and New Zealand.

1997COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONSAS VEHICLES FOR CHANGEMott supports the Council of Michigan Foundations,working jointly with the Great Lakes Protection Fund,to create a collaborative of 21 community foundationslocated along the Great Lakes shoreline that support

environmental grantmaking.

1990

1996SEEDING THE FIELD IN RUSSIAMott support to Charities AidFoundation helps initiate communityfoundations in Russia. The first suchinstitution is launched two years laterin Togliatti, Flint’s sister city.

1998POLAND, SOUTH AFRICA ESTABLISHCOMMUNITY FOUNDATIONSMott makes its first grants to develop the fieldin South Africa and Poland. Within two years,both countries develop their first Mott -fundedcommunity foundations.

Foundation to create and und the ransatlanticCommunity Foundation Network. Te network,which existed rom 1999 to 2008, included peer-exchange visits, large annual meetings and smallerregional gatherings. It ultimately involved about

our dozen practitioners rom 14 countries in North

America and Europe who shared experiences andexpertise. Working together, practitioners developedproducts or the eld such as marketing materials andprogram evaluation guidelines.

Occasionally, Mott also unds major peer-learning events such as the “Community Foundations:Symposium on a Global Movement” held in Berlin,Germany, in December 2004. It was the rst globalmeeting on the topic; plans are under way or anotherin the next ew years.

Support organizations — statewide, regional,national and internationalSupport organizations are ofen the institutions

community oundations turn to or technicalassistance and peer-learning opportunities. Teyalso serve as the voice or the eld. Whether their

ocus is statewide, regional, national or international,such organizations as the Council o MichiganFoundations, League o Cali ornia CommunityFoundations, Community Foundation Partnershipin Russia and the Global Fund or Community

Foundations all help promote and pro essionalizethe community oundation eld. In part, they do thisby developing, collecting and distributing resourcematerials, and also by advocating or an environmentthat is scally and legally supportive o the eld.

Currently, and in the recent past, Mott hasprovided grants to support organizations that arehelping develop and strengthen the eld nationwidein the U.S. and in other countries, including Australia,

Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Mexico,the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia,

urkey, Ukraine and the U.K.One strategic and efficient way Mott continues

to support the concept’s spread internationally isthrough its grants to the Global Fund or Community

Foundations. As its name implies, the Global Fundprovides support to help start, strengthen and sustainemerging community oundations and communityphilanthropy organizations around the world. It isthe only international organization solely dedicatedto this mission, which it carries out by providing theconnecting organizations; advocating or community

oundations with international donor institutions; andunding emerging grassroots grantmaking institutions

around the globe.Te Global Fund makes small grants ranging

rom $5,000 to $15,000. While some grants areused as incentives to secure matching donations tobuild endowments, others und local projects, peerexchanges, con erence attendance and additionalactivities that support organizational development.Its seed unding also can open doors or emerginginstitutions to secure unding rom other sources. odate, the Global Fund has made grants totaling $2.2million to 121 organizations in 41 countries.

Created in 2006 as a three-year joint initiative othe World Bank, the Mott and Ford oundations and

WINGS (the Worldwide Initiative or GrantmakerSupport), the Global Fund was hosted by theEuropean Foundation Centre in Brussels duringits pilot phase; it became independent in 2009 andestablished an office in Johannesburg, South A rica, in2010, where it remains.

Te Global Fund’s grant support enablescommunity oundations in locations as diverse asBrazil, Jordan, Nepal, Philippines, Romania and




2001NURTURING THE CONCEPT IN MEXICO AND GERMANYMott supports training, mentoring and developmentopportunities for the emerging field in Mexico. Thatsame year, the Foundation makes grants to help expandcommunity foundations in Germany — the country’s firstwas created in 1997; in 2013 there were more than 250.

2005 EXPANDING WORK INBOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINAMott begins making grants tosupport and expand the work ofthe Tuzla Community Foundation, one of the firstcommunity foundations in the Western Balkans.

2000 2003GROWING A STRONG BASEIN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELANDMott makes an endowment grant tothe Community Foundation for Ireland,which was established in 2000 as anational community foundation.

2006GLOBAL RESOURCE CREATEDWith support from Mott and others, the Global Fund forCommunity Foundations is launched. Its focus is to promoteand strengthen individual community foundations and otherlocal grantmakers, and their related networks around the world.

Vietnam to stand on theirown as vehicles o positivelocal change.

Most recently, theFoundation has recognizedthat although the community

oundation concept is anexcellent vehicle or communityphilanthropy, it is not theonly one. As indigenousphilanthropy developsinternationally, it is taking onmany orms. Consequently,Mott has partnered with theAga Khan Foundation USA,the Rocke eller BrothersFund, the Global Fund and

the United States Agency orInternational Developmentto launch the Global Alliance

or Community Philanthropy.Te Mott Foundation is supporting the Alliance by

unding the Global Fund to manage the Alliance’sactivities, sharing its learning and supporting its effortsto promote community philanthropy as a valuabledevelopment practice.

Research and lessons learned

Since its earliest days o unding communityoundations, Mott has supported the sharing o

research, evaluations and lessons learned about theeld — a practice that continues today.

For example, Mott’s longtime grantee WINGSproduces a biannual Global Status Report, whichtracks the growth and development o the community

oundation eld internationally. Te report provideseld statistics and status updates on specic countries,

and is used by support organizations, individualcommunity oundations, donors and unders.

In addition, by supporting practitioners’ effortsto share lessons learned about the eld, there’s lesslikelihood o “reinventing the wheel” and increasedopportunities or cross- ertilization to occur.

Mott’s support or disseminating eld in ormationis closely tied to the Foundation’s awareness o the

broader concept o community philanthropy. Te 2013publication, “Te Case or Community Philanthropy:How the Practice Builds Local Assets, Capacity, and

rust — and Why It Matters,” is a primer on the vitalimportance o community philanthropy as a vehicle orinternational development and community betterment.Te publication builds on “Te Value o CommunityPhilanthropy,” a Mott/Aga Khan Foundation- undedreport released in 2012.


The Sea Cadets program, funded by community foundations in the United

Kingdom, provides team building exercises to 14,000 young people throughsailing, boating and rock climbing.



2008ROMANIA EMBRACES THE CONCEPTMott makes an initial grant to developcommunity foundations in Romania.The field in that country has sincegrown from two to 12 communityfoundations.

2014U.S. FIELD CELEBRATESCENTENNIALThe U.S. communityfoundation field marksits 100th anniversary.

2000 2011EXPANDING REACH INTO TURKEYMott provides support to the Third SectorFoundation of Turkey with the long -term goalof growing the overall field of philanthropy,including community foundations.

100Y E A R S

MOTT’S LESSONS LEARNEDThrough more than six decades of grantmaking to help develop and strengthen the community foundationfield locally, nationally and internationally, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation has learned some valuablelessons that may be useful to both donors and communities. Among the most critical are:

Importance of local roots. o be success uland sustainable, community oundations must beinitiated by local leaders and residents and ocuson a community’s assets rather than its decits.People and organizations outside the communitycan offer assistance, but the real motivation mustcome rom within.

More than money. Although the size o acommunity oundation’s endowment remains animportant measure o its success, it is not the solemeasure. Increasingly, community oundations are valued or their ability to act as conveners and leadersin their communities — attributes especially valuedin nancially poor communities that, nonetheless,have other important resources that can be sur aced,deployed, leveraged and grown.

Technical assistance is crucial. o be effective,community oundations need technical assistanceearly on and along the way. Tey need trainingto develop expertise in ways to interact with thecommunity, engage board members, cultivate donorsand develop policies and procedures or investingnances, evaluating grants, optimizing technology,etc. Additionally, community oundations need toensure that the organizations they support receivesufficient technical assistance.

Funder and leader. Increasingly, communityoundations may nd themselves needing to strike

a balance between reacting to community needsand becoming a proactive local leader capable oaddressing entrenched issues head-on.

Inclusiveness. Te most success ul communityoundations try to serve and involve the entire

community, broadening participation in itsgovernance, decisionmaking and activities to allkinds o residents, not just donors and communityleaders. Youth involvement is especially productiveand strategic.

Long-term process. Nurturing the establishmentand growth o community oundations takes time.While their mission — to improve communities — isseemingly simple, these institutions are complexin structure and process, requiring patience andlong-term commitment. Moreover, it takes time ora community oundation to establish a track recordo success in the community and become a trustedresource or the long haul.

Infrastructure matters. Te importance oin rastructure (support) organizations to the growthand health o the community oundation movementcannot be emphasized enough. Recent studies haveshown that in places with a healthy in rastructure— membership associations, networks, councils,

orums and ederations — community oundationsare more likely to proli erate.

Adaptable to unique communities. Te capacityo the eld to adapt to different tax structures,laws and cultures has been clearly demonstratedin places around the globe. While there is a needto be sensitive to the cultural context o eachspecic community and the resources therein, thecommunity oundation is a concept that has provedto be both versatile and adaptable.





A philanthropic approachwith global appealThe Mott Foundation’s support for community foundations grew naturally out of ourtraditional commitment to strengthening communities and reflected the view of founder

Charles Stewart Mott, who believed that our basic strength as a nation is derived from

strong, cohesive communities.

With that as the underpinning, the Foundationhelped support the development and spread

o the concept over more than three decades. Inthe ollowing pages, we illustrate the breadth oMott’s grantmaking to community oundations,as well as to several o the eld’s supportorganizations, on a world map eaturing siteswhere notable achievements and signicantgrowth have taken place.

In addition, three short eatures — each ocusingon a different aspect o the community oundationeld today — portray the power ul potential theseinstitutions hold or local communities, or conveningand collaborating to create change, and or cultivatingthe charitable impulse. From the local to the regional

to the global, the eatured initiatives include:

West Coast CommunityFoundationCreated “to nurture thegrowth o philanthropyand improve itsresponsiveness to the needso ‘poor and marginalizedcommunities’ ” in theWestern Cape province o South A rica, the

community oundation today serves as a catalyst thatmobilizes and distributes resources and also providescommunity development training that helps localcommunities become sel -sustaining.

Great Lakes CommunityFoundation CollaborativeIn the late 1990s, the GreatLakes Protection Fund, jointly with the Councilo Michigan Foundations,led an initiative designedto increase the number ocommunity oundations located along the GreatLakes shoreline that would make grants to restoreand protect the Great Lakes ecosystem. Te resultwas a network o community oundations thatworked on Great Lakes-wide problems and helpedbuild endowments to ensure those problems wouldbe addressed over the long term. Many o the

21 community oundations that participated inthe collaborative remain active in environmentalgrantmaking.

Association forCommunity RelationsEstablished to promoteand develop philanthropyin Romania, this youngphilanthropic supportorganization is driving

incremental change incharitable attitudes and behavior, principallythrough its efforts to develop community

oundations as vehicles or local giving anddecisionmaking, and as unders o the work done bylocal non-governmental organizations.



In 1988, the Mott Foundation responded to aunique opportunity to make a $1.6-million challengegrant to Charities Aid Foundation to support selectcommunity oundations in the United Kingdomin building permanent endowments. It was adeliberate rst step by the Foundation to help developcommunity oundations internationally. By this time,experience had shown Mott leaders that community

oundations had the potential to be effective vehiclesor strengthening civil society. As both civic and

philanthropic institutions, they could involve

ordinary citizens in addressing long-term challenges— with the benet o using resources pooled romlocal individuals, businesses and municipal units ogovernment to und solutions.

Simultaneously, while Mott’s grantmaking washelping grow the eld throughout the U.S. and theU.K, several global events — including the all o theBerlin Wall and the legal end o apartheid in SouthA rica — were paving the way or the Foundation,along with a hand ul o partners, to share thecommunity oundation concept abroad more widely.

Tese sweeping changes — plus the developmento Mott’s rst ormal Civil Society Program Planin 1992 to guide its international grantmaking —prompted the Foundation to re ocus its strategies tobuild the eld.

Domestically, by the mid-1990s Mott had stoppedmaking grants to individual community oundationsin the U.S. and concentrated on unding community

oundation support organizations as a way to promote,pro essionalize and uni y the eld. Tis targeted supportcontinues today.

In addition to providing ongoing grants to threelongtime philanthropic promoters o community

oundations — the Council on Foundations, FoundationCenter and the Council o Michigan Foundations— Mott expanded its grantee base to support newerstatewide, regional and national support organizations.Tese included the League o Cali ornia CommunityFoundations (Jamestown, Cali .), Southeastern Councilo Foundations (Atlanta, Ga.), Forum o RegionalAssociation o Grantmakers (Arlington, Va.), and

Mott expands fieldfunding internationally

CANADA GROWS THE FIELDFROM COAST TO COASTThe nation’s first communityfoundation was created inWinnipeg in 1921. During thenext 71 years, Canada addedonly 27 more. However, afterthe Community Foundations ofCanada (CFC), a Mott grantee,was created in 1992, the fieldnearly tripled within six years.Today, the country’s 187institutions cover 89 percentof the nation.

MEXICO POSITIONEDFOR GROWTHSince the first communityfoundation was created in themid -1990s, the field has grown to20 today. These institutions existin 16 of Mexico’s 31 states, withmore growth expected since therecent formation of a nationalsupport organization, Comunalia,a Mott sub -grantee through theInter -American Foundation.

continued on page 12

Mott’s Grantmaking Seeds Global Growth


MEXICO POSITIONEDFOR GROWTHSince the first communityfoundation was created in

the mid -1990s, the field hasgrown to 22 today. Theseinstitutions exist in 19 ofMexico’s 31 states, withmore growth expected sincethe recent formation of anational support organization,Comunalia, a Mott sub -grantee through the Inter -American Foundation.

U.S. FIELD DEVELOPSIN DEPTH AND BREADTHAfter Mott provided grants toU.S. community foundationsfor technical assistance andendowments, it initiated agrassroots -grantmaking programin the mid -1980s that usedcommunity foundations as vehiclesto improve neighborhoods.Since then, Mott has repeatedthis strategy of partnering withcommunity foundations toachieve program goals in severalgrantmaking areas.

CANADA GROWS THE FIELDFROM COAST TO COASTThe nation’s first communityfoundation was created inWinnipeg in 1921. During thenext 71 years, Canada addedonly 27 more. However, afterthe Community Foundations ofCanada (CFC), a Mott grantee,was created in 1992, the fieldnearly tripled within six years.Today, the country’s 187institutions cover 89 percentof the nation.

COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONSSPREAD THROUGHOUT THE U.K.Although the first community foundationin the U.K. was created in Swindonin 1975, the field didn’t take off untilafter 1991 and the creation of theMott – funded Community FoundationsNetwork (now called UK CommunityFoundations). Today, virtually every U.K.citizen has access to a local communityfoundation — 54 in all.

GERMANY ADVANCES CONCEPAND FIELD FLOURISHESMott worked in partnership with theBertelsmann Foundation, beginning in2001, to develop the field in Germany.With more than 250 communityfoundations nationwide in 2013,Germany ranks second globally in sheernumbers behind the U.S. Although itsfirst community foundation was createdonly 15 years ago as a “foundationof citizens for citizens,” the field hasgrown at a fast pace with combinedassets of approximately $300 million.

SOUTH AFRICA COMMUNITYFOUNDATIONS IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFEFrom Mott’s office in Johannesburg, South Africa,the Foundation has supported the growth ofcommunity foundations throughout the country.Today, Mott supports three community foundations:the Community Development Foundation WesternCape, Uthungulu Community Foundation and theWest Coast Community Foundation. These Mott -funded foundations have helped grow the field to atotal of five today.

onlineEXTRAS @ www.mott.org/AR2012Visit our Web site for exclusive online content.



Community Foundations: A Global View

FORMER SOVIET BLOC COUNTRIESCREATE COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS

SOUTH AFRICA COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONSIMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE

From Mott’s office in Johannesburg, South Africa, theFoundation has supported the growth of communityfoundations throughout the country. Today, Mottsupports three community foundations: the CommunityDevelopment Foundation Western Cape, UthunguluCommunity Foundation, and the West Coast CommunityFoundation. These Mott -funded foundations have helpedgrow the field to a total of five today.

COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONSSPREAD THROUGHOUT THE U.K.Although the first community foundationin the U.K. was created in Swindon in1975, the field didn’t take off untilafter 1991 and the creation of theMott -funded Community FoundationsNetwork (now called UK CommunityFoundations). Today, virtually every U.K.citizen has access to a local communityfoundation – 54 in all.

The Academy for the Developmentof Philanthropy in Warsaw, Poland,was established in 1998. The Mottgrantee serves as a national andregional support organization,and has helped create more thantwo dozen community foundationsthroughout Poland.

Created in 1998, the Togliatti CommunityFoundation was Russia’s first suchinstitution. Since then, Charities AidFoundation and Community FoundationPartnership, both Mott grantees,have supported the field’s growth anddevelopment, resulting in 45 communityfoundations nationwide.

The Healthy City Community Foundation inBanská Bystrica, Slovakia, was established in1992 as an operating foundation and becameEastern Europe’s first community foundationin 1994. In 2003, the Association of SlovakCommunity Foundations, a Mott grantee, wascreated and currently has eight members.


The Academy for theDevelopment of Philanthropy inWarsaw, Poland, was establishedin 1998. The Mott granteeserves as a national and regionalsupport organization, and hashelped create more than twodozen community foundationsthroughout Poland.

The Healthy City Community Foundation inBanská Bystrica, Slovakia, was established in1992 as an operating foundation and becameEastern Europe’s first community foundationin 1994. In 2003, the Association of SlovakCommunity Foundations, a Mott grantee, wascreated and currently has eight members.

FORMER SOVIET BLOC COUNTRIESCREATE COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS

Created in 1998, the Togliatti CommunityFoundation was Russia’s first such institution.Since then, Charities Aid Foundation andCommunity Foundation Partnership, both Mottgrantees, have supported the field’s growthand development, resulting in 45 communityfoundations nationwide.

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALANDDEVELOP COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS

Australia’s first public community foundation,the Tasmanian Community Foundation, waslaunched in 1995. Since then, the field hasgrown to 36 countrywide. In nearby NewZealand, where the field is about 18 years old,there are currently 11 community foundationslocated throughout the nation. Each countryhas a support organization for the philanthropicfield, Philanthropy New Zealand andPhilanthropy Australia. The latter is apast Mott grantee.



Local funder responds toneeds and empowers residents

Simphiwe Somnqaba works at a farm cooperative in Klawer,a community north of Cape Town, South Africa, that receivesfinancial support and business expertise from the West CoastCommunity Foundation to become self -sustaining.


West Coast Community Foundation, South Africa




With almost fatherly pride,Simphiwe Somnqaba gripsa baby bottle of milk and

encourages the little one on his lap to

drink. When this kid’s belly is full, hewill feed another. Caring for kids —young goats — is his job. In addition toproviding Somnqaba with an income,it allows him to help his older brother,Collman, who is one of seven membersof the Klawer Small Scale Cooperative.

Te co-op is one o two arms currently receivingsupport rom the West Coast Community Foundation(WCCF). Based in the Western Cape province o SouthA rica, the WCCF is a Mott grantee; its mission is to reducepoverty and build sel -reliant communities.

“We are seeing some very positive outcomes becausethese armers want to better themselves and provide

or their amilies,” said Johanna Hendricks, CEO o thecommunity oundation.

Te goat arm is located less than a mile rom thesmall town o Klawer, a rural community o about 6,250residents that is 175 miles north o Cape own. Its co-opmembers also raise pigs and grow vegetables. Tey — alongwith members o the Eden Commercial Organic Farms inAtlantis, a semi-urban area about 25 miles north o Cape

own — turned to the community oundation or practicalguidance in operating their co-ops. Locally based, staffedand unded, WCCF is recognized as a trusted, non-politicalgrassroots-grantmaking institution, Hendricks said.

Afer struggling with several major obstacles — lacko access to public land or grazing, stolen animals andinsufficient unds to pay eed and water bills — each armapplied or a grant, but the oundation initially providedno money to either. Instead, staff shared a lot o theircollective know-how. For example, be ore meeting withthe oundation, co-op members in Klawer mainly workedas individual subsistence armers. But, afer learning that





co-ops unction best when owners share tasks andwork interdependently, they put those principlesinto practice and saw their operations improve,Hendricks said.

Additionally, oundation staff provided practicalhelp or the Eden armers. Tey aided them in drafinga constitution and creating the policies and proceduresneeded to become a registered non-governmentalorganization (NGO). Tese steps positioned the NGO

to receive unding rom several sources, includingstartup grants rom the WCCF. While the oundation’smoney was minuscule by most grantmaking standards($500 annually), it meant a lot to the armers. So didthe pro essional guidance, Hendricks said.

“Tey applied or a grant,” she said. “But weasked, ‘Is that really what they need?’ We did acomplete assessment o their ability to manage thebusiness and offered training in areas where theirskills were lacking.”

With both co-ops now operating as legally

registered NGOs, they can access resources andexpertise rom local, provincial and nationalgovernment programs. Tat aspect o the WCCF’swork is similar to other community oundationsaround the globe, Hendricks said. While others mightnot support arm co-ops, they do provide technicalassistance to strengthen NGOs and offer training todevelop the skills o NGOs’ staff and volunteers.

“I love this work because we witness liveschanging,” Hendricks said. “We see people grow. Tey

go rom not believing they can do much o anythingto discovering, ‘Hey, I can do this!’ Tose are the littletreasures I keep in my heart.”

WEST COAST COMMUNITY FOUNDATION(WCCF) Malmesbury, South Africa

Mott grants through 2012: $382,500

Highlight: Another WCCF -supported project,Atlantis Athletico soccer club, reaches 300vulnerable youth. While soccer is the draw,coaches use it as a medium to address gangactivities, substance abuse, teen pregnancyand failure to complete high school. Theirclub’s slogan: “When you have a gun in yourhand, people respect the gun, not you. Whenyou play ball, people respect you, not theball.” [Read more about this project atwww.mott.org/AR2012]

In their own words: “The Atlantis Athletico

brings about real change in the lives ofchildren and their parents. It is markedby people who make personal sacrificesof their own finances and time to giveunconditionally to create an enablingenvironment for our children.”

– CEO Johanna HendricksWest Coast Community Foundation

Web site: www.wccf.org.za

Independent farmers in Klawer, South Africa, banded together to create a nonprofit cooperative. It is one of two

farm co-ops in the area that receive support from the West Coast Community Foundation.

http://www.wccf.org.za/

http://www.wccf.org.za/




Maria Isaks and other subsistence farmers in Klawer, SouthAfrica, improved their productivity after the local communityfoundation discussed the benefits of sharing tasks and workinginterdependently.



Community foundations

work together to tackleregional issues


Great Lakes Community Foundation Collaborative, United States




Staff members at the GreatLakes Protection Fund (GLPF)in Chicago say their ears

perked up after hearing some mediabuzz in summer 2013 surroundingthe Community Foundation of theHolland/Zeeland Area in Michigan.

Behind that buzz was the communityoundation’s announcement o its rst Community

Impact Grant, a board-directed $250,000 investmentlinking it with several public, private and nonprotpartners in a ve-year, $12 million initiative calledProject Clarity. Te partnership aims to restorewetlands in the Lake Macatawa watershed andimprove the region’s water quality.

More than a decade earlier, the Holland/Zeelandinstitution had joined a GLPF initiative that wascreated in partnership with the Council o MichiganFoundations. Te project was designed to increasethe number o community oundations located alongthe Great Lakes shoreline that made grants to restoreand protect the Great Lakes ecosystem. Called theGreat Lakes Community Foundation Collaborative,the project’s unders included the Joyce and CharlesStewart Mott oundations.

“While you can’t draw a straight line betweenthe earlier Great Lakes collaborative and this [new]project, you can in er that the momentum or thislevel o environmental grantmaking began whencommunity oundations started looking through theenvironmental lens,” said J. David Rankin, GLPF vicepresident o programs.

“Te collaborative created a network ocommunity oundations that could begin to tackleGreat Lakes-wide problems together.”

By design, program participants representedall eight states in the Great Lakes Basin — Indiana,Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio,Community foundations sharing the Lake

Superior shoreline participated in anendowment -building program with otherGreat Lakes -based community foundations topreserve and restore the area’s ecosystem.





Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and the Canadianprovince o Ontario, which also is in the basin.While Mott made two grants totaling $880,000

rom 1997 to 2000 or this project, it was notthe rst time the Foundation engaged a groupo community oundations to address localissues. From 1984 to 1994, Mott supported theNeighborhood Small Grants Program throughwhich the Foundation provided grants tocommunity oundations that then unded localprojects identied by grassroots groups. Ultimately,25 community oundations nationwide took part

in the program. For several o the participatingcommunity oundations, it was the rst time theyhad met with neighborhood groups and madegrants in response to voiced concerns.

Likewise, the Great Lakes collaborative was therst time many o the 21 participating community

oundations had met with residents and discussedenvironmental issues related to the Great Lakes. ohelp ensure that these environmental challenges couldbe addressed or the long haul, Mott provided modest$15,000 incentive grants or endowment building toeach oundation that secured matching donations. In

Small incentive grants from the Mott Foundation to a networkof community foundations in the Great Lakes region leveragedmillions of dollars for a coordinated effort to addressenvironmental concerns.




all, more than $4.6 million was raised or endowmentsduring the grant period, and an additional $4.2 millionwas secured in government grants through 2001 orcollaborative initiatives, Rankin said.

By having community oundations workingon the same problem at various locations aroundthe Great Lakes, the combined return was greater— and others took notice, he said. A network o 18community oundations located along the MississippiRiver — rom Minnesota to Louisiana — replicatedthe coordinated approach. Created in 2006, theRiver Partnership o Community Foundations helps

preserve, protect and restore the Mississippi River andits tributaries.

Meanwhile, as a participant in the GreatLakes collaborative, the Community Foundationo the Holland/Zeeland Area has maintained itsenvironmental interest more than a dozen yearsafer the initiative ended, said Mike Goorhouse, vice president o donor development. Althoughthe community oundation had created its ownenvironment und a ew years be ore the collaborativestarted, it wasn’t well known or widely supported,he said. However, afer the endowment challengewas announced, new donors contributed to theenvironment und, along with donors who previouslyhad given to its other unds, Goorhouse said.

“Te challenge grant gave us a voice to speakboldly about environmental issues,” he said. “Someone

rom outside our community was interested in GreatLakes causes and had come here with matchingmoney or us to do something. Tat helped bring localattention to our environmental issues. And, as you cansee, we’re continuing that work today.”

GREAT LAKES COMMUNITYFOUNDATION COLLABORATIVE

Mott grants for the collaborative: $880,000

Highlight: The Racine (Wisconsin)Community Foundation, an originalcollaborative participant, remains activein environmental grantmaking today. Infact, it helped launch the Root -Pike WIN(Watershed Initiative Network), a nonprofitorganization that works to protect thewatershed’s drinking water quality, and alsoits more than 200 miles of rivers, streamsand tributaries that eventually empty intoLake Michigan. [Read more about thisproject at www.mott.org/AR2012]

In their own words: “Root -Pike WIN isdedicated to pollution -free waterways thatare essential to the health and vitality ofour community — now and for the nextgenerations.” – Former Executive Director Mary Beth Mikrut

Racine Community Foundation

Web site: http://www.racinecommunityfoundation.org

http://www.racinecommunityfoundation.org/







Cultivating the charitable

impulse countrywide

Annual swim -a-thons like this in Cluj, Romania, offercompetitive fun while raising vital monetary supportfor community foundations across Romania.

Association for Community Relations, Romania




The many years needed byRomania to transition from

decades of communism to amodern-day democracy have helpedinfluence the country’s more long-termapproach to philanthropy work.

“We have learned to celebrate incremental changes inattitudes and behavior about giving instead o expectingone dramatic trans ormation,” said Alina Porumb,the community oundation’s program director at the

Association or Community Relations (ACR) in Cluj-Napoca, a northern Romanian city. “In the last years,however, the rhythm o change in Romanian philanthropyhas picked up, and what was only hope ve years ago isnow reality.”

In 2001 — a dozen years afer the country startedshifing to a market economy, including privatizingstate-owned enterprises — ACR was established with amission to promote and develop philanthropy in Romania.Since then, it has become a national leader in developingcommunity oundations as vehicles or local giving and

societal change.ACR staff is enthusiastic about innovative undraising

initiatives that people are using in their communitiesto meet local needs, says Porumb, with community

oundations serving as plat orms or sharing andshowcasing these initiatives to inspire others.

Philanthropic behavior becomes more rootedin everyday community li e, she says, as honorees atweddings and birthday parties ask riends and amilies tomake donations to local causes or the nearest community

oundation in lieu o gifs. Similarly, people use sporting

events, such as swim-a-thons and soccer matches, asundraising opportunities to collect pledges and donationsor community oundations and other non-governmental

organizations (NGOs).“At these events, people see they can make a big impact

in their community when their small amounts are addedtogether,” Porumb said. “It is wonder ul because these ideas




were totally organic, emerging rom thecommunity itsel .”

Donations have helped und a variety o projects, including equippinga village kindergarten with educationaltoys, providing house repairs or peoplein need and supporting art programs

or children with visual and hearingimpairments.

ACR currently promotes bothindividual and corporate giving,although its earlier activities ocusedmore on encouraging corporate givingto NGOs, Porumb says. While corporategiving continues to have a high rateo involvement rom employees andclients, ACR has expanded its work toinspire and engage individual donors.

In addition to interacting with donors directly,ACR partners with other groups, such as the UnitedWay Foundation Romania, to create stronger taxincentives or donations given by individuals andbusinesses in Romania.

oday, ACR’s philanthropy programs ocus on

the ollowing:• developing young grantmakers throughYouthBank groups nationwide;

• building individual giving initiatives, includinga national program allowing citizens todesignate specic NGOs as recipients o a smallportion o their tax money;

• encouraging people to pool funds to generate agreater local impact through Donor Circles;

• promoting a platform that connects NGOs withbanks and mobile phone operators so people can

easily make technology-based donations; and• establishing community foundationsthroughout the country.

With Mott’s help, there are now 12 communityoundations nationwide. Tese grantmaking

institutions are spreading because they incorporatean inclusive style o decisionmaking that involvesresidents in all aspects o community projects — vastly different rom how things were done under the

ormer communist system, Porumb says.However, she says, much public education is

still needed because the community oundationconcept was previously unknown in Romania.Whether making donations or providinginput on local projects, residents appreciatethe transparency associated with community

oundations, Porumb says.“Donors are involved in deciding what to und

and then invited to visit or otherwise learn about thecompleted projects,” she said. “Tis is accountability.It is closing the circle o giving.”

ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITYRELATIONS (ACR) Cluj -Napoca, Romania

Mott grants through 2012: $1.55 million

Highlight: With strong local leadershipand support from ACR and its donors andpartners, 12 community foundations havebeen established in Romania in the pastsix years. Today, 35 percent of Romanianshave access to a community foundation.Collectively, these institutions have pooledand invested about $825,000, mostly fromlocal donors, in more than 100 resident -identified causes.

In their own words: “The enthusiasm and

creativity of community foundations isinspiring positive responses from the localpeople, who are ready to act to improve theirown lives and communities.”

– Program Director Alina PorumbACR Community Foundation

Web site: http://arcromania.ro

Community foundations improve the lives of children by fundinggroups like the Club for Alternative Education in Bucharest.

http://arcromania.ro/

http://arcromania.ro/




Community foundations engage young people withYouthBank -funded projects like this in Iasi, Romania,where students cleaned and painted murals in a derelictpedestrian tunnel.




The final wordAs the community foundation field embraces its second century of

operation, there undoubtedly will be challenges to overcome. Twocome readily to mind. Although it is impossible to predict how the

globalization of society or our fast -changing technology will affect people’spropensity for giving decades from now, we can easily imagine thatindividuals’ loyalties to a specific place may weaken as they move from

place to place, or that ever newer technologies will continue to make iteven easier to give directly to any cause, any place, any time.

In response, community foundations not only will need to integratepeople’s new “communities of interest or identity” with the more traditional“communities of place,” but also will need to demonstrate to donors their“value added” as intermediary organizations.

We suspect they are up to the challenge.

The fact that community foundations have endured for a century is a suresign of their value and versatility. Moreover, there is every reason to believethat the community support organizations and networks now in place — orthose that will succeed them — will continue to help spread the communityfoundation concept in the years to come into regions where seeds are onlystarting to sprout.

As long as the concept remains true to its core, while maintaining flexibilityin light of an ever -changing world, it is quite possible the field could finditself celebrating its bicentennial 100 years from now.



2012 Annual Report 352012 Annual Report 35

Programs & Grants




Program Overview: Civil Society

Mission: To strengthen philanthropy and the nonprofit sector as vital vehicles forincreasing civic engagement and improving communities and societies.

CENTRAL/EASTERN EUROPE AND RUSSIA

Goal: To foster a civil society in which nonprofitsstrengthen democratic values and practicesand have access to adequate and responsiveresources.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Active Civic Participation. People andnonprofits empowered to take collective actionthat promotes and defends democratic values.

Philanthropy Development. Promote anddevelop a more robust culture of private givingfor public good.

SOUTH AFRICA

Goal: To empower poor and marginalizedcommunities to unlock resources and realizetheir development needs and aspirations.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Community Advice Office Sector. Strong andsustainable community advice offices andrelated community -based organizations thatassist poor and marginalized communities.

Philanthropy Development. Increasedphilanthropy with improved responsivenessto the needs of poor and marginalizedcommunities.

Special Opportunities. Support uniqueopportunities to strengthen civil society.

UNITED STATES

Goal: To increase the nonprofit and philanthropicsector’s responsiveness and capacity to addresssocial and community needs.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Nonprofit Sector Responsiveness. A robustinfrastructure that protects and promotes avibrant and responsive nonprofit sector andphilanthropy.

Community Philanthropy. Philanthropythat promotes vitality and resiliency in localcommunities.

GLOBAL PHILANTHROPYAND NONPROFIT SECTOR

Goal: To foster global platforms for philanthropyand the nonprofit sector that respond to theneeds of local communities.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Philanthropy and Nonprofit Sector.Philanthropy and nonprofit supportorganizations improve their effectivenessthrough international collaboration andexchange of knowledge.

Special Opportunities. Support uniqueopportunities to strengthen civil society.

Note: The grant listings and charts within this report reflect the geographic sub -regions in which we make grants

in Central/Eastern Europe and Russia.

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/civilsociety/europeandrussia

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/civilsociety/southafrica

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/civilsociety/us

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/civilsociety/globalandnonprofit




http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/civilsociety/us

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/civilsociety/southafrica

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/civilsociety/europeandrussia




GRANT DOLLARS(in millions)

NUMBEROF GRANTS

CENTRAL/EASTERN EUROPE AND RUSSIA

Southeast Europe $ 5.597 41

Western Former Soviet Union $ 3.545 24

CEE/Russia Regional $ .978 6

SOUTH AFRICA

Community Advice Office Sector $ 2.340 16

Philanthropy Development $ .575 7

Special Opportunities $ .422 3

UNITED STATES

Nonprofit Sector Responsiveness $ 2.185 21

Community Philanthropy $ .500 3

Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Philanthropy $ .350 3

GLOBAL PHILANTHROPY AND NONPROFIT SECTORPhilanthropy and Nonprofit Sector $ 2.215 18


TOTALS $ 18.932 143

GRANT ACTIVITY:$18,931,660 / 143 GRANTS

$10.12071 Grants

$2.44019 Grants

$3.03527 Grants

$3.33726 Grants

in millions




Central/EasternEurope and RussiaSoutheast EuropeAnadolu KulturIstanbul, Turkey $150,000 – 24 mos.Art for social changeAssociation for Community RelationsCluj-Napoca, Romania$120,000 – 24 mos.General purposesBalkan Community InitiativesFund – SerbiaBelgrade, Serbia$500,000 – 60 mos.Endowment for sustainable future$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesBalkan Investigative Reporting NetworkSarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesBulgarian Center for Nonprofit LawSofia, Bulgaria$190,000 – 36 mos.

NGO-BG: Legitimacy through visibility,knowledge and shared resourcesBulgarian Charities Aid FoundationSofia, Bulgaria$75,000 – 24 mos.General purposesBulgarian Donors’ ForumSofia, Bulgaria$10,000 – 36 mos.General purposesBulgarian EnvironmentalPartnership FoundationSofia, Bulgaria$300,000 – 36 mos.General purposesBulgarian School of PoliticsSofia, Bulgaria$100,000 – 24 mos.Promoting philanthropicculture in BulgariaCARE USAAtlanta, GA$100,000 – 12 mos.Strengthening civil societyin Western BalkansCenter for Civic CooperationLivno, Bosnia and Herzegovina$60,000 – 24 mos.Increasing citizen participation incommunity life through mediaCenter for Civil InitiativesZagreb, Croatia$100,000 – 24 mos.

General purposesCentre for Peace, Nonviolenceand Human Rights OsijekOsijek, Croatia$22,000 – 24 mos.General purposesCentre for Research,Documentation and PublicationPristina, Kosovo$70,000 – 24 mos.Planning and administrative support

Civic AlliancePodgorica, Montenegro$70,000 – 24 mos.Toward enhanced civicactivism and sustainable civicparticipation in MontenegroCivic InitiativesBelgrade, Serbia$150,000 – 24 mos.General purposes

Civil Society Promotion CenterSarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina$70,000 – 24 mos.General purposesCommunity Building MitrovicaMitrovica, Kosovo$70,000 – 24 mos.General purposesFund for Active CitizenshipPodgorica, Montenegro$200,000 – 24 mos.General purposesGroup 484Belgrade, Serbia$100,000 – 24 mos.Institutional and programdevelopment support

Heartefact FundBelgrade, Serbia$125,000 – 24 mos.General purposesInitiative for ProgressFerizaj, Kosovo$80,000 – 24 mos.School of activismInstitute for PublicEnvironment DevelopmentSofia, Bulgaria$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesIntegraPrishtina, Kosovo$60,000 – 24 mos.

Dealing with the past –transitional justice in KosovoInternational Council forCultural CentersSofia, Bulgaria$100,000 – 24 mos.Strengthening bread housesnetwork in BulgariaKosova Women’s NetworkPristina, Kosovo$50,000 – 24 mos.General purposesMozaik CommunityDevelopment FoundationSarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina$500,000 – 60 mos.Endowment for sustainable future

$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesNetwork for the Affirmationof NGO Sector – MANSPodgorica, Montenegro$75,000 – 24 mos.General purposesOrganization for Civil InitiativesOsijek, Croatia$60,000 – 24 mos.General purposes

PopulariSarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina$60,000 – 24 mos.General purposesRegional Foundation for LocalDevelopment ZamahZagreb, Croatia$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesTruth, Justice and Memory

Studies AssociationIstanbul, Turkey $125,000 – 24 mos.General purposesTuzla Community FoundationTuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesUnited Way RomaniaBucharest, Romania$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesWorkshop for CivicInitiatives FoundationSofia, Bulgaria$500,000 – 48 mos.Endowment for sustainable future$405,000 – 36 mos.General purposesYouth Initiative for HumanRights – BosniaSarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesYouthBuild USASomerville, MA$200,000 – 24 mos.YouthBuild in Western Balkans

Subtotal: $5,597,000Southeast Europe

Western Former Soviet UnionAssociation for InternationalEducation and ExchangeDortmund, Germany $100,000 – 24 mos.Encouraging development of non -governmental organizations in BelarusAssociation of Ukrainian HumanRights Monitors on Law EnforcementKyiv, Ukraine$100,000 – 24 mos.Strengthening capacity of youth toprotect and restore their rightsCharities Aid FoundationKent, England $400,000 – 24 mos.Community foundationdevelopment in Russia$125,000 – 24 mos.Increasing private donations toRussian nonprofit sectorCivic Analysis and IndependentResearch CenterPerm, Russia$200,000 – 24 mos.Civil initiatives for publicbenefit support service




CloudwatcherMoscow, Russia$150,000 – 24 mos.Merit BankCommunity Foundation PartnershipTogliatti, Russia$100,000 – 24 mos.Institutional developmentEast Europe FoundationKyiv, Ukraine

$180,000 – 18 mos.Act NowEdnanniaKyiv, Ukraine$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesFoundation for IndependentRadio BroadcastingMoscow, Russia$200,000 – 24 mos.Participatory radio as means forcommunity development in RussiaGarage Gang KollektivKyiv, Ukraine$200,000 – 24 mos.Generation celebrationInEcA-consultingNovokuznetsk, Russia$100,000 – 24 mos.Develop course on publicparticipation for studentsMoscow School of Political StudiesMoscow, Russia$200,000 – 24 mos.General purposesMunicipal Center for HumanisticTechnologies ‘AHALAR’Chernihiv, Ukraine$100,000 – 24 mos.Territory of development: communitymobilization in UkraineNational Center for Preventionof Violence ‘ANNA’

Moscow, Russia$150,000 – 24 mos.Mobilizing local communities toprevent domestic violencePontis FoundationBratislava, Slovakia$100,000 – 24 mos.Building capacity of Belarus’analytical communityRussia Donors ForumMoscow, Russia$120,000 – 36 mos.General purposesSakhalin Salmon Initiative CenterYuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russia

–$75,000Adjustment to previous grantSiberian Civic Initiatives Support CenterNovosibirsk, Russia$180,000 – 24 mos.Communities of, by and for the peopleSluzhenye AssociationNizhny Novgorod, Russia$125,000 – 24 mos.Community development in Volga region

Step by Step MoldovaChisinau, Moldova$150,000 – 24 mos.Community schooldevelopment in MoldovaUkrainian Helsinki Human Rights UnionKyiv, Ukraine$150,000 – 24 mos.General purposesUkrainian Philanthropists Forum

Kyiv, Ukraine$80,000 – 24 mos.Institutional developmentWest-Ukrainian Resource CenterLviv, Ukraine$150,000 – 24 mos.General purposesWild Salmon CenterPortland, OR $160,000 – 24 mos.Russian Far East public watershedcouncil network initiative

Subtotal: $3,545,000Western Former Soviet Union

CEE/Russia RegionalAssociation for Community RelationsCluj-Napoca, Romania$144,380 – 18 mos.Initiative for strategic philanthropyand intelligent resourcesCEE Citizens NetworkBanska Bystrica, Slovakia$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesCommunity Foundationfor Northern IrelandBelfast, Ireland $200,000 – 24 mos.International YouthBank support modelEnvironmental Partnership AssociationBrno, Czech Republic$100,000 – 24 mos.EPA in the European systemEuropean Foundation CentreBrussels, Belgium$30,000 – 24 mos.Grantmakers East groupFoundation-Administered Projects$66,829Active civic participation$19,494Community education developmentassistance project in Central/EasternEurope and former Soviet Union$41,991Community foundation development$74,891Philanthropy developmentin southeast Europe

Latvian Rural ForumRiga, Latvia$200,000 – 24 mos.Pre -accession partnership for ruralEurope – PREPARE network

Subtotal: $977,585CEE/Russia Regional

Program Area Total: $10,119,585Central/Eastern Europeand Russia

South AfricaCommunity Advice Office SectorAfrika Tikkun

Johannesburg, South Africa$150,000 – 24 mos.Core operational supportBlack Sash TrustCape Town, South Africa$220,000 – 24 mos.General purposesCommunity ConnectionsPhilippi, South Africa$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesCommunity Law and RuralDevelopment CentreDurban, South Africa$250,000 – 24 mos.General purposesCommunity OrganisationResource CentreCape Town, South Africa$100,000 – 27 mos.General purposesEastern Cape NGO CoalitionEast London, South Africa$150,000 – 24 mos.General purposesHIVOS – South Africa

Johannesburg, South Africa$100,000 – 12 mos.Multi -agency grants initiative:advice office re -granting projectIsandla InstituteCape Town, South Africa$150,000 – 24 mos.Good governance learning networkNational Alliance for the Developmentof Community Advice OfficesCape Town, South Africa$200,000 – 24 mos.Community advice officesustainability project$200,000 – 24 mos.Support to provincialadvice office forumsRhodes UniversityGrahamstown, South Africa$200,000 – 24 mos.Rhodes University legal aidclinic: advice office projectRural Legal Trust

Johannesburg, South Africa$100,000 – 24 mos.Advice office program




Steve Biko Foundation Johannesburg, South Africa$120,000 – 24 mos.General purposesTrust for CommunityOutreach and EducationCape Town, South Africa$50,000 – 27 mos.General purposesUniversity of Fort Hare

Alice, South Africa$100,000 – 24 mos.UNESCO Oliver Tambo Chair of HumanRights: enhancing participatorydevelopment and social awarenessamong local women and youthUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalDurban, South Africa$150,000 – 24 mos.Centre for Civil Society

Subtotal: $2,340,000Community Advice Office Sector

Philanthropy DevelopmentCommunity DevelopmentFoundation Western CapeCape Town, South Africa$120,000 – 24 mos.General purposesIkhala TrustPort Elizabeth, South Africa$150,000 – 24 mos.General purposesSocial Change Assistance TrustCape Town, South Africa$250,000 – 24 mos.General purposesSouth African Institute for AdvancementCape Town, South Africa$2,500 – 24 mos.General purposesSouthern Africa TrustMidrand, South Africa$25,000 – 12 mos.Change4ever campaignSouthern African CommunityGrantmakers Leadership ForumCape Town, South Africa$25,000 – 12 mos.General purposesWest Coast Community FoundationCape Town, South Africa$2,500 – 23 mos.General purposes

Subtotal: $575,000Philanthropy Development

Special OpportunitiesFoundation-Administered Project$49,437Learning and sharing sessionsSGS Consulting

Johannesburg, South Africa$197,147 – 12 mos.Technical support and dialogue platform

Social Surveys Johannesburg, South Africa$75,000 – 12 mos.Toward better understandingof civil society in AfricaSouth African History OnlinePretoria, South Africa$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposes

Subtotal: $421,584

Special OpportunitiesProgram Area Total: $3,336,584South Africa

United StatesNonprofit Sector ResponsivenessAssociation of Small FoundationsWashington, DC$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesCouncil of Michigan FoundationsGrand Haven, MI$25,000 – 24 mos.

General purposesCouncil on FoundationsArlington, VA$50,000 – 12 mos.LearnPhilanthropyDemos: A Network for Ideas and ActionNew York, NY $100,000 – 12 mos.Building civic capacity bynonprofit service organizationsForum of Regional Associationsof GrantmakersArlington, VA$80,000 – 24 mos.PolicyWorks for philanthropyFoundation CenterNew York, NY $170,000 – 24 mos.General purposesFoundation-Administered Project$130,000Office of foundation liaisonGrantmakers for Effective OrganizationsWashington, DC$50,000 – 24 mos.General purposesGuideStarWilliamsburg, VA$135,000 – 24 mos.General purposesIndependent SectorWashington, DC$200,000 – 24 mos.General purposesJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, MD$90,000 – 18 mos.Nonprofit listening post project

Michigan Nonprofit AssociationLansing, MI$380,000 – 24 mos.General purposesNational Council of NonprofitsWashington, DC$210,000 – 24 mos.General purposesNonprofit QuarterlyBoston, MA

$100,000 – 24 mos.General purposesPhilanthropy for ActiveCivic EngagementWashington, DC$15,000 – 24 mos.General purposesStanford UniversityStanford, CA$150,000 – 24 mos.Philanthropy, policy andtechnology projectUrban InstituteWashington, DC$100,000 – 24 mos.NCCS community platform$100,000 – 24 mos.Tax policy and charities projectSubtotal: $2,185,000Nonprofit Sector Responsiveness

Community PhilanthropyChicago Community TrustChicago, IL$100,000 – 24 mos.Second century projectCouncil on FoundationsArlington, VA$100,000 – 12 mos.Community foundation centennialIndiana University

Indianapolis, IN $300,000 – 12 mos.C.S. Mott Foundation communityphilanthropy chair

Subtotal: $500,000Community Philanthropy

Racial and Ethnic Diversityin PhilanthropyCouncil of Michigan FoundationsGrand Haven, MI$150,000 – 12 mos.Transforming Michigan philanthropythrough diversity and inclusionTides CenterSan Francisco, CA$150,000 – 36 mos.Emerging practitioners inphilanthropy project$50,000 – 12 mos.Philanthropic initiative for racial equity

Subtotal: $350,000Racial and EthnicDiversity in Philanthropy

Program Area Total: $3,035,000United States




Global Philanthropyand Nonprofit SectorPhilanthropy and Nonprofit SectorCIVICUS: World Alliance forCitizen ParticipationWashington, DC$120,000 – 24 mos.Affinity group for national associations$80,000 – 12 mos.General purposesCleveland FoundationCleveland, OH $230,000 – 27 mos.Community foundationglobal online atlasCouncil on FoundationsArlington, VA$50,000 – 24 mos.Global philanthropy programEuropean Foundation CentreBrussels, Belgium$160,000 – 12 mos.General purposesFoundation-Administered Project$47,491

Global community philanthropydevelopmentGlobal Fund for Community Foundations

Johannesburg, South Africa$200,000 – 12 mos.Small grants and capacity -building programInter-American FoundationWashington, DC$300,000 – 36 mos.Mexican communityfoundation development

Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, MD$150,000 – 15 mos.Global civil society information system$50,000 – 24 mos.International Society forThird -Sector ResearchKenya CommunityDevelopment FoundationNairobi, Kenya

$50,000 – 12 mos.Africa Grantmakers NetworkKeystone AccountabilityTacoma, WA$50,000 – 12 mos.Constituent voice in philanthropyLondon Community FoundationLondon, England $50,000 – 12 mos.Developing LondonCommunity FoundationNetwork of European Foundationsfor Innovative CooperationBrussels, Belgium$28,000 – 12 mos.Membership and administrative support$25,000 – 12 mos.Network of European foundationsanniversary projectResearch Foundation of theCity University of New YorkNew York, NY $200,000 – 24 mos.International communityfoundation fellows programUK Community FoundationsLondon, England $100,000 – 24 mos.General purposes

U.S.-Mexico BorderPhilanthropy PartnershipSan Diego, CA$275,000 – 24 mos.General purposesWorld Affairs Council ofNorthern CaliforniaSan Francisco, CA$50,000 – 24 mos.Global philanthropy forum

Subtotal: $2,215,491Philanthropy and Nonprofit Sector

Special OpportunitiesInternational Academy forInnovative Pedagogy, Psychologyand Economy gGmbHBerlin, Germany $225,000 – 12 mos.Youth empowermentpartnership program

Subtotal: $225,000Special Opportunities

Program Area Total: $2,440,491Global Philanthropy

and Nonprofit SectorProgram Total: $18,931,660Civil Society




Program Overview: Environment

Mission: To support the efforts of an engaged citizenry working to create accountableand responsive institutions, sound public policies and appropriate models ofdevelopment that protect the diversity and integrity of selected ecosystems in NorthAmerica and around the world.

CONSERVATION OF FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS

Goal: To advance the conservation and restorationof freshwater ecosystems in North America, withemphasis on the Great Lakes and, to a lesserextent, portions of the southeastern U.S.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Strengthening the Environmental Community.A strong, effective and sustainable non -governmental organization (NGO) communitydedicated to the long -term conservation offreshwater ecosystems.

Public Policies. Well -designed and effectivelyimplemented water -quality and water -quantitypolicies that advance the conservation offreshwater ecosystems.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITYGoal: To shape international investment tosupport sustainable development and reduceenvironmental degradation.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Infrastructure and Energy for a SustainableFuture. Infrastructure and energy investmentsthat contribute to environmental sustainabilityand offer local economic opportunity.

Sustainable Regional Development andIntegration. Regional trade and investmentstrategies that contribute to local sustainabledevelopment, with an emphasis on LatinAmerica.

Special Opportunities. Unique opportunitiesto advance sustainable development goals andpromote capacity building for NGOs.

SPECIAL INITIATIVES

Goal: To respond to unique opportunities toadvance environmental protection in the U.S.and internationally.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Growth Management and Urban Revitalizationin Michigan. In Michigan’s urban areas andsurrounding older communities, a builtenvironment designed to promote environmentalhealth, economic prosperity and social equity.

Special Opportunities. Support efforts thatoffer a one -time opportunity to contributeto the resolution of a significant domestic orglobal concern.

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/environment/ecosystems


http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/environment/InternationalFinance


http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/environment/specinit

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/environment/specinit









NUMBEROF GRANTS

CONSERVATION OF FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS

Strengthening the Environmental Community $ 2.095 12

Public Policies $ 1.200 12

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY

Infrastructure and Energy for a Sustainable Future $ 2.740 17

Sustainable Regional Development and Integration $ 2.270 12

Special Opportunities $ .039 –

SPECIAL INITIATIVES

Growth Management and Urban Revitalization in Michigan $ .500 6


TOTALS $ 9.439 65

$3.29524 Grants

$1.09512 Grants

$5.04929 Grants


in millions




Conservation ofFreshwater EcosystemsStrengthening theEnvironmental CommunityAlliance for the Great LakesChicago, IL$250,000 – 24 mos.General purposesClean WisconsinMadison, WI$130,000 – 24 mos.Great Lakes water programFlint River Watershed CoalitionFlint, MI$80,000 – 24 mos.General purposesFreshwater FuturePetoskey, MI$275,000 – 24 mos.General purposesGrand Traverse RegionalLand ConservancyTraverse City, MI$150,000 – 24 mos.General purposes

Heart of the Lakes Center forLand Conservation PolicyGrand Ledge, MI$20,000 – 24 mos.General purposesLand Trust AllianceWashington, DC$300,000 – 24 mos.Strengthening land trusts and promotingcollaboration to conserve freshwaterecosystems in Great Lakes basinMinnesota Environmental PartnershipSt. Paul, MN $180,000 – 24 mos.Northeast Minnesota programNational Wildlife FederationReston, VA$100,000 – 24 mos.Healing Our Waters – GreatLakes CoalitionOhio Environmental CouncilColumbus, OH $170,000 – 24 mos.Great Lakes ecosystem projectRiver Alliance of WisconsinMadison, WI$150,000 – 24 mos.Great Lakes programRiver NetworkPortland, OR $290,000 – 24 mos.Building citizen capacity forfreshwater protection

Subtotal: $2,095,000Strengthening theEnvironmental Community

Public PoliciesAlabama Rivers AllianceBirmingham, AL$15,000 – 24 mos.Alabama water -management projectAmerican RiversWashington, DC$150,000 – 18 mos.Ensuring healthy river flows$40,000 – 24 mos.Running rivers campaignChattahoochee RiverkeeperAtlanta, GA$100,000 – 24 mos.Georgia water policy projectGeorgia River NetworkAthens, GA$80,000 – 24 mos.Protecting healthy river flows for GeorgiaGeorgia Wildlife FederationCovington, GA$80,000 – 24 mos.Georgia comprehensive statewidewater managementGreat Lakes CommissionAnn Arbor, MI

$75,000 – 19 mos.Eco -separation of Chicago -area waterway system toprevent Asian carp invasionGreat Lakes Environmental Law CenterDetroit, MI$50,000 – 24 mos.Water quality projectMidwest Environmental AdvocatesMadison, WI$80,000 – 24 mos.Water quantity protectionand conservation projectMinnesota Center forEnvironmental AdvocacySt. Paul, MN $150,000 – 24 mos.Minnesota sulfide ore -mining projectNational Wildlife FederationReston, VA$300,000 – 24 mos.Great Lakes water quality projectNatural Resources Defense CouncilNew York, NY $80,000 – 24 mos.Implementation of Great Lakes Compact

Subtotal: $1,200,000Public Policies

Program Area Total: $3,295,000Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystems

International Financefor SustainabilityInfrastructure and Energyfor a Sustainable FutureActionAidLondon, England $250,000 – 24 mos.Bretton Woods projectBank Information CenterWashington, DC$425,000 – 24 mos.General purposesBerne Declaration (Erklarung von Bern)Zurich, Switzerland $200,000 – 24 mos.Sustainable financial relations projectEnvironmental Law Alliance WorldwideEugene, OR $15,000 – 24 mos.General purposesFERNMoreton-in-Marsh, England $200,000 – 24 mos.European Union campaign toreform export credit agencies andinternational financial flowsForest Peoples ProgrammeMoreton-in-Marsh, England $250,000 – 24 mos.Promoting forest peoples’ interests ininternational forest policy makingForward WorksHong Kong, China$200,000 – 24 mos.Greenovation hubFriends of the EarthWashington, DC$25,000 – 24 mos.Advancing and protecting sustainabilitystandards in development financeInstitute for Policy StudiesWashington, DC$15,000 – 24 mos.Global finance for climate sustainabilityNGO Forum on ADBQuezon City, Philippines$40,000 – 24 mos.General purposesOil Change InternationalWashington, DC$310,000 – 24 mos.International programPLATFORMLondon, England $150,000 – 24 mos.Reforming energy investmentRe:CommonRome, Italy

$300,000 – 24 mos.Mainstreaming environmentalsustainability into a changingdevelopment financeSouth Africa Development FundBoston, MA$20,000 – 24 mos.BASIC South Initiative




Tufts UniversityMedford, MA$90,000 – 24 mos.China in Latin America: environmentaland developmental dimensionsUrgewaldSassenberg, Germany $250,000 – 24 mos.Promoting environmental and socialstandards in financial sector

Subtotal: $2,740,000Infrastructure and Energyfor a Sustainable Future

Sustainable RegionalDevelopment and IntegrationCenter for Socio-Environmental SupportCunha, Brazil$300,000 – 24 mos.General purposesCentro Peruano de Estudios SocialesLima, Peru$100,000 – 30 mos.Accountability for integration andinfrastructure investments in Peru

Derecho Ambiente yRecursos NaturalesLima, Peru$250,000 – 24 mos.General purposesEcoa – Ecology and ActionCampo Grande, Brazil$200,000 – 24 mos.Monitoring environmental impactsof financial flows for infrastructureand energy in South AmericaFriends of the Earth –Brazilian AmazoniaSão Paulo, Brazil$35,000 – 24 mos.Holding Amazon megaprojectsto account

Fundacion Ambiente yRecursos NaturalesBuenos Aires, Argentina$250,000 – 24 mos.Monitoring infrastructureinvestments in ArgentinaIndian Law Resource CenterHelena, MT $150,000 – 24 mos.Integration investments and indigenouspeoples in South AmericaInstituto Latinoamericano para unaSociedad y un Derecho AlternativosBogotá, Colombia$160,000 – 24 mos.Strengthening civil society engagementin regional integration and infrastructure

investments in Colombia

Instituto SocioambientalSão Paulo, Brazil$175,000 – 24 mos.Investment impacts of BrazilianNational Development Bankon regional sustainabilityInteramerican Association forEnvironmental DefenseSan Francisco, CA$200,000 – 24 mos.Promoting sustainability inenergy and infrastructureinvestments in Latin AmericaNational Alliance of Latin American& Caribbean CommunitiesChicago, IL$200,000 – 24 mos.Building Latino immigrant capacityon regional integrationUruguayan Study Center ofAppropriate TechnologiesMontevideo, Uruguay $250,000 – 24 mos.Impacts and alternatives to newtrade regime on environmental andsustainability options in Latin America

Subtotal: $2,270,000

Sustainable RegionalDevelopment and Integration

Special OpportunitiesFoundation-Administered Project$39,207International finance forsustainability convenings


Program Area Total: $5,049,207International Finance for Sustainability

Special InitiativesGrowth Management and UrbanRevitalization in MichiganDisability Advocates of Kent CountyGrand Rapids, MI$80,000 – 24 mos.Model transportation projectEcology CenterAnn Arbor, MI$120,000 – 24 mos.Model transit projectFunders’ Network for Smart Growthand Livable CommunitiesCoral Gables, FL$40,000 – 24 mos.General purposes

MI*VoiceDetroit, MI$100,000 – 24 mos.Constituency building and outreach onland use and equitable developmentMichigan Environmental CouncilLansing, MI$125,000 – 24 mos.Michigan transportationreform partnership

Michigan Suburbs AllianceFerndale, MI$35,000 – 12 mos.Transportation reform

Subtotal: $500,000Growth Management andUrban Revitalization in Michigan

Special OpportunitiesAlliance for Economic SuccessManistee, MI$65,000 – 18 mos.Collaborative master plan andimplementation strategyBay Area Community FoundationBay City, MI$150,000 – 24 mos.Saginaw Bay watershedinitiative networkConsultative Group onBiological DiversitySan Francisco, CA$40,000 – 24 mos.General purposesEnvironmental Grantmakers AssociationNew York, NY $30,000 – 24 mos.General purposesFoundation-Administered Project$60,089Coordinating and networkingGreat Lakes grantmakers and

partner organizationsNature ConservancyArlington, VA$250,000 – 36 mos.Saginaw Bay initiative


Program Area Total: $1,095,089Special Initiatives

Program Total: $9,439,296Environment




Mission: To foster a well -functioning, connected community that is capable of meetingthe economic, social and racial challenges ahead.

Program Overview: Flint Area

ARTS, CULTURE AND EDUCATION

Goal: To support education, arts and culturalinstitutions as critical forces for positive changeand key determinants of the community’s qualityof life and economic well -being.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Arts and Culture. Strong, sustainable andvibrant local cultural organizations that providediverse arts and cultural opportunities to allresidents of Genesee County.

Education. A continuum of high -quality learningopportunities that meets the needs of Flint -areachildren, youth and adults from pre -kindergartenthrough college.

ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION

Goal : To support efforts that improve localgovernance, regional cooperation, communityparticipation and the Flint area’s economic vitality.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Economic Development. A vibrant and diverseregional economy.

Workforce Development. Quality employmentopportunities for Flint -area residents who facemultiple barriers to good jobs in the regionallabor market.

STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY

Goal: To support programs that provideopportunities for children and families, improveneighborhoods and the community, and sustain avibrant nonprofit sector.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Children and Families. Healthy and productivelives for Genesee County children and families.

Housing and Neighborhoods. Affordable housingand livable neighborhoods, with an emphasis onthe city of Flint.

Philanthropy/Nonprofit Sector. A strong, localnonprofit sector capable of meeting communityneeds.

SPECIAL INITIATIVES

Goal: To respond to critical opportunities and/or issues that have the potential to significantlyimprove the quality of life in the Flint area.

OBJECTIVE/WHAT WE SEEK: Special Initiatives. Flexibility to respond tocritical needs, seize special opportunities,leverage other resources and incubate newprogram areas in the Flint community.

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/flintarea/artsculted

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/flintarea/econrevitil

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/flintarea/communities

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/flintarea/specinit

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/flintarea/specinit

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/flintarea/communities

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/flintarea/econrevitil

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/flintarea/artsculted





NUMBEROF GRANTS

ARTS, CULTURE AND EDUCATION

Arts and Culture $ 4.642 13

Education $ 10.350 13

ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION

Economic Development $ 5.945 9

Workforce Development $ .299 2

STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY

Children and Families $ 2.121 16

Housing and Neighborhoods $ 3.123 8

Philanthropy/Nonprofit Sector $ 1.165 6

SPECIAL INITIATIVES

Special Initiatives $ 3.911 10

TOTALS $ 31.556 77

$14.99226 Grants

$3.91110 Grants

$6.24411 Grants

$6.40930 Grants


in millions




Arts, Culture andEducationArts and CultureCommunity Foundation of Greater FlintFlint, MI$50,000 – 12 mos.S. Jean Simi Fund for the ArtsFlint Cultural Center CorporationFlint, MI$1,550,000 – 12 mos.Operating support$140,000 – 9 mos.Program support$69,450 – 9 mos.Security assessmentFlint Institute of ArtsFlint, MI$1,549,924 – 12 mos.Operating supportFlint Institute of MusicFlint, MI$50,000 – 6 mos.Music in the Parks$740,100 – 12 mos.Operating support$50,000 – 6 mos.Tapology Tap Dance Festival for YouthGenesee Area Focus FundFlint, MI$20,000 – 10 mos.Back to the Bricks/Bikes on the Bricks$52,500 – 10 mos.Public safety for Back to the BricksGreater Flint Arts CouncilFlint, MI$150,000 – 12 mos.General purposes$120,000 – 12 mos.Parade of FestivalsSphinx Organization

Detroit, MI$100,000 – 12 mos.Overture program and partnershipwith Flint Institute of Music

Subtotal: $4,641,974Arts and Culture

EducationCentral Michigan UniversityMt. Pleasant, MI$115,000 – 12 mos.GEAR UP college day programCranbrook Educational CommunityBloomfield Hills, MI$200,000 – 12 mos.

Flint Community Schoolsyoung scientistsEduGuideLansing, MI$131,000 – 12 mos.GEAR UP Michigan projectFlint Community SchoolsFlint, MI$50,000 – 6 mos.Organizational review$70,000 – 3 mos.Summer Tot Lot program

Flint Regional Science FairFlint, MI$45,000 – 36 mos.General purposesGenesee Area Focus FundFlint, MI$2,900,000 – 12 mos.YouthQuest afterschool initiativeGenesee Intermediate School DistrictFlint, MI

$150,000 – 10 mos.Genesee Early CollegeKettering UniversityFlint, MI$13,000 – 12 mos.FIRST robotics team$6,512,740 – 12 mos.Transformational initiativesMott Community CollegeFlint, MI$149,803 – 12 mos.Smart Teachers as Rolemodels (STAR) initiativePW Empowerment Group Inc.Flint, MI$13,500 – 12 mos.Champions suspension program

Subtotal: $10,350,043Education

Program Area Total: $14,992,017Arts, Culture and Education

Economic RevitalizationEconomic DevelopmentAutoHarvest FoundationDetroit, MI$100,000 – 12 mos.Accelerating automotive innovationFoundation for the UptownReinvestment Corporation

Flint, MI$129,696 – 12 mos.Downtown security$2,000,000 – 12 mos.Flint Journal property acquisition$68,750 – 12 mos.Operating support$72,000 – 12 mos.Real estate developmentsupport servicesFoundation-Administered Project$110,000Technical assistance fordowntown Flint revitalizationGenesee Area Focus FundFlint, MI

$3,400,000 – 12 mos.Education and economicdevelopment initiativesUniversity of Michigan-FlintFlint, MI$65,000 – 12 mos.Innovation incubator

Subtotal: $5,945,446Economic Development

Workforce DevelopmentFlint Area SpecializedEmployment Services Inc.Flint, MI$150,000 – 12 mos.Flint STRIVE replication programFoundation-Administered Project$23,520Cluster -based innovationstrategy development

Greater Flint Health CoalitionFlint, MI$125,000 – 12 mos.Flint health -care employmentopportunities project

Subtotal: $298,520Workforce Development

Program Area Total : $6,243,966Economic Revitalization

Strengthening CommunityChildren and FamiliesAmerican Arab Heritage CouncilFlint, MI

$45,000 – 12 mos.Immigration servicesBoy Scouts of America –Tall Pine CouncilFlint, MI$50,000 – 12 mos.General purposesBoys & Girls Club of Greater FlintFlint, MI$164,139 – 12 mos.General purposesCatholic Charities of Shiawasseeand Genesee CountiesFlint, MI$45,000 – 5 mos.Holy Angels warming center

$150,000 – 12 mos.North End Soup Kitchenprogram expansionCatholic OutreachFlint, MI$120,000 – 12 mos.Medical transportation programFair Food NetworkAnn Arbor, MI$120,000 – 12 mos.Double Up Food Bucks projectFlint Area SpecializedEmployment Services Inc.Flint, MI$81,450 – 12 mos.Flint STRIVE Academy youthempowerment programFood Bank of Eastern MichiganFlint, MI$125,000 – 6 mos.Increasing food distribution and accessGenesee Area Focus FundFlint, MI$825,000 – 12 mos.Summer youth initiativeGenesee County Departmentof Human ServicesFlint, MI$15,000 – 12 mos.Middle school family resource centers




Mott Community CollegeFlint, MI$50,000 – 7 mos.Teen CEO initiativeResource GeneseeFlint, MI$60,000 – 12 mos.One Stop Housing Resource CenterSalvation Army of Genesee CountyFlint, MI

$100,000 – 12 mos.Rent and utility assistance programShelter of Flint Inc.Flint, MI$70,000 – 12 mos.General purposesYWCA of Greater FlintFlint, MI$100,000 – 12 mos.Nina’s Place

Subtotal: $2,120,589Children and Families

Housing and NeighborhoodsCarriage Town Ministries

Flint, MI$75,000 – 12 mos.University Square projectCenter for Community ProgressFlint, MI$2,360,000 – 12 mos.General purposesCity of FlintFlint, MI$263,804 – 14 mos.Master plan for sustainable FlintGenesee County Land Bank AuthorityFlint, MI$238,999 – 12 mos.Neighborhood and community planning

Metro Community DevelopmentFlint, MI$135,000 – 12 mos.General purposesSalem Housing CommunityDevelopment CorporationFlint, MI$50,000 – 12 mos.General purposes

Subtotal: $3,122,803

Housing and Neighborhoods

Philanthropy/Nonprofit SectorAssociation of BlackFoundation ExecutivesNew York, NY $70,000 – 12 mos.Connecting leaders fellowship programCommunity Foundation of Greater FlintFlint, MI$88,400 – 20 mos.National service fundCrim Fitness FoundationFlint, MI$320,000 – 12 mos.Capacity buildingFoundation-Administered Projects$4,950Technical assistance$253,370Technical assistance andtechnology upgradesUnited Way of Genesee CountyFlint, MI$138,750 – 6 mos.Building Excellence, Sustainability andTrust nonprofit capacity building$250,000 – 12 mos.General purposes$40,000 – 22 mos.Transition support

Subtotal: $1,165,470Philanthropy/Nonprofit Sector

Program Area Total: $6,408,862Strengthening Community

Special InitiativesSpecial InitiativesCity of FlintFlint, MI$57,000 – 6 mos.City of Flint fiscal technical assistance$1,485,520 – 12 mos.Flint 21st century community policingDetroit Symphony OrchestraDetroit, MI$5,000 – 6 mos.Heroes gala honoring Lloyd ReussFlint Area Congregations TogetherFlint, MI$190,000 – 24 mos.Education and youth organizing project$110,000 – 12 mos.General purposesFlint Downtown Development AuthorityFlint, MI$250,000 – 12 mos.Downtown festivalsGenesee County Parks &Recreation CommissionFlint, MI

$1,551,000 – 12 mos.General purposesLegal Services of Eastern MichiganFlint, MI

–$90,000Adjustment to previous grantMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI$350,000 – 12 mos.Flint 21st century communitypolicing technical assistanceMount Hermon MissionaryBaptist ChurchFlint, MI$2,500 – 6 mos.African -American history calendar

Subtotal: $3,911,020Special Initiatives


Program Total: $31,555,865Flint Area




Program Overview: Pathways Out of Poverty

Mission: To identify, test and help sustain pathways out of poverty for low -income peopleand communities.

IMPROVING COMMUNITY EDUCATION

Goal: To ensure that community education servesas a pathway out of poverty for children in low -income communities.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Community-Driven Reform. Effectivecommunity -driven reform strategies thatincrease student achievement across entireschool districts and at the state or regional level.

Educational Opportunities for Vulnerable Youth.Policies and practices that ensure that vulnerableyouth are prepared for college and careers.

Learning Beyond the Classroom. High -qualitylearning beyond the classroom initiatives thatincrease student success by providing studentswith multiple ways of learning, anchored tohigh standards and aligned with educationalresources throughout a community.

EXPANDING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

Goal: To expand opportunity for those in, or atrisk of, persistent poverty by promoting policiesand programs that increase income and assets,help people connect to the labor market andenable them to advance into better -quality,higher -paying jobs.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Income Security. A social safety net thataugments families’ efforts to escape poverty.

Reducing Barriers to Employment. Innovativestrategies that enable low -skill, low -income jobseekers to enter the labor market.

Retention and Wage Progression. Workforcedevelopment policies and practices that helplow-income workers stay in the labor market andincrease their earnings over time.

BUILDING ORGANIZED COMMUNITIES

Goal: To enhance the power and effectivenessof the community -organizing field in order tostrengthen and sustain the involvement of low -income communities in shaping their futures.

OBJECTIVE/WHAT WE SEEK: Building Community Organizing Infrastructure.Strong and effective community -organizingnetworks at the national, regional and state levelsthat foster community engagement and positivechange in poor communities.

SPECIAL INITIATIVES

Goal: To sustain promising practices and promoteinnovative and multidisciplinary approaches toreduce persistent poverty.

OBJECTIVES/WHAT WE SEEK: Transitions. Policies and practices thatstrengthen microenterprise in the U.S. in orderto maximize its potential as a means for low -

income entrepreneurs to escape from poverty. Exploratory and Special Projects. Flexibilityto identify critical issues, seize specialopportunities, research issues to determinefuture program directions and promote cross -cutting projects.

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/pathwaysoutofpoverty/improvingcommunityeducation

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/pathwaysoutofpoverty/expandingeconomicopportunity

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/pathwaysoutofpoverty/buildingorganizedcommunities

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/pathwaysoutofpoverty/specinit

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/pathwaysoutofpoverty/specinit

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/pathwaysoutofpoverty/buildingorganizedcommunities

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/pathwaysoutofpoverty/expandingeconomicopportunity

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/programs/pathwaysoutofpoverty/improvingcommunityeducation





NUMBEROF GRANTS

IMPROVING COMMUNITY EDUCATION

Community -Driven Reform $ .155 3

Educational Opportunities for Vulnerable Youth $ 2.386 17

Learning Beyond the Classroom $ 9.519 42

EXPANDING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

Income Security $ 2.986 17

Reducing Barriers to Employment $ .776 6

Retention and Wage Progression $ 4.763 18

BUILDING ORGANIZED COMMUNITIES

Building Community Organizing Infrastructure $ 4.876 32

SPECIAL INITIATIVES

Transitions $ 1.207 7

Exploratory and Special Projects $ 1.485 5

TOTALS $ 28.153 147

$12.06062 Grants

$2.69212 Grants

$4.87632 Grants

$8.52541 Grants

GRANT ACTIVITY:

$28,152,551

/147

GRANTS

in millions




Improving CommunityEducationCommunity-Driven ReformCommunity Foundation for theNational Capital RegionWashington, DC$50,000 – 12 mos.Collaborative for education organizingInstitute for Wisconsin’s FutureGlendale, WI$55,000 – 12 mos.Opportunity to learn – MidwestPICO National NetworkOakland, CA$50,000 – 12 mos.Louisiana Interfaith Together

Subtotal: $155,000Community -Driven Reform

Educational Opportunitiesfor Vulnerable YouthCareer Alliance Inc.Flint, MI$30,000 – 12 mos.Jobs for America’s graduatesCenter for Law and Social PolicyWashington, DC$100,000 – 12 mos.Reconnecting the disconnected:building systems to reconnectyouth to education and jobsCommunity Foundation for theNational Capital RegionWashington, DC$20,000 – 12 mos.Youth Transition Funders GroupEditorial Projects in EducationBethesda, MD$100,000 – 12 mos.Diplomas Count: the graduation project

Kalamazoo Community FoundationKalamazoo, MI$100,000 – 24 mos.Improving outcomes for out -of-school youth in MichiganLansing Community CollegeLansing, MI$150,000 – 18 mos.High school diplomacompletion initiativeMichigan’s ChildrenLansing, MI$200,000 – 24 mos.Improving outcomes for out -of-school youth in MichiganNational League of Cities InstituteWashington, DC

$200,000 – 12 mos.Municipal leadership fordisconnected youthPew Charitable TrustsPhiladelphia, PA$75,000 – 12 mos.Building new workforce and communitycollege pathways in dental industry

Resource GeneseeFlint, MI$95,000 – 12 mos.Genesee County out -of-school youth initiativeRutgers University FoundationNew Brunswick, NJ $100,000 – 12 mos.Developing and sustaining pre -college bridge programs

San Francisco State UniversitySan Francisco, CA$150,000 – 18 mos.Building green energy andtechnology pathwaysSchool & Main InstituteBoston, MA$225,000 – 12 mos.Schools for the Future: developing newhigh school pathways and innovationsfor at -risk and struggling studentsSouthern Education FoundationAtlanta, GA$100,000 – 12 mos.Policy strategies and actionsaddressing needs of high schooldropouts in the South

University of Michigan-FlintFlint, MI$415,700 – 12 mos.Pre -college summer residential andacademic year bridge programYouth Connection Charter SchoolChicago, IL$125,000 – 12 mos.Career pathways programYouthBuild USASomerville, MA$200,000 – 12 mos.Developing sector strategies toposition low -income youth forcareers in high -demand sectors

Subtotal: $2,385,700Educational Opportunitiesfor Vulnerable Youth

Learning Beyond the ClassroomAcademy for Educational DevelopmentWashington, DC

–$50,000Adjustment to previous grantAfterschool AllianceWashington, DC$1,100,000 – 12 mos.General purposesAfter-School All-StarsLos Angeles, CA$300,000 – 24 mos.General purposesAfter-School CorporationNew York, NY $50,000 – 4 mos.International conference on education$225,000 – 36 mos.New York statewide afterschool network

Alliance for Excellent EducationWashington, DC$100,000 – 12 mos.Digital learning in afterschoolAmerican Institutes for ResearchWashington, DC$150,000 – 12 mos.Exploring statewide datasystems for 21st centurycommunity learning centers

$255,000 – 24 mos.Identifying promising practicesArizona Center forAfterschool ExcellencePhoenix, AZ $225,000 – 36 mos.Arizona statewide afterschool networkAsia SocietyNew York, NY $300,000 – 24 mos.Promising practices inafterschool: global literacyAuburn UniversityAuburn, AL$225,000 – 36 mos.Alabama statewide afterschool networkChamplain Valley EducatorDevelopment CenterColchester, VT $225,000 – 36 mos.Vermont statewide afterschool networkChild Development for Kids Inc.Medford, MA$225,000 – 18 mos.Increasing literacy proficiency forHispanic dual -language learnersChrysalis FoundationDes Moines, IA$225,000 – 36 mos.Iowa statewide afterschool networkCollaborative Communications GroupWashington, DC$200,000 – 9 mos.

Afterschool communications project$500,000 – 24 mos.Supporting national network ofstatewide afterschool networksCollege of Charleston FoundationCharleston, SC$300,000 – 48 mos.Afterschool and communitylearning networkCommunities Foundation of OklahomaOklahoma City, OK $150,000 – 27 mos.Oklahoma statewide afterschool networkConnecticut After School NetworkBranford, CT $225,000 – 36 mos.Connecticut statewideafterschool networkCouncil of Chief State School OfficersWashington, DC$50,000 – 18 mos.Building state capacity and supportingstatewide afterschool networksEastern Michigan University FoundationYpsilanti, MI$225,000 – 12 mos.John W. Porter Distinguished Chairin Urban Education endowment




Finance ProjectWashington, DC$350,000 – 24 mos.Funding strategies for s tatewideafterschool networksFoundation-Administered Project$79,206Afterschool technical assistancecollaborative and statewideafterschool networks

FowlerHoffmanRichmond, CA$225,000 – 12 mos.Policy and messaging strategiesfor afterschool networksFrameWorks InstituteWashington, DC$100,000 – 23 mos.Communicating aboutexpanded learning timeGrantmakers for EducationPortland, OR $50,000 – 36 mos.General purposesInstitute for Educational LeadershipWashington, DC$200,000 – 24 mos.Coalition for community schoolsMassachusetts Afterschool PartnershipBoston, MA$225,000 – 36 mos.Massachusetts statewideafterschool networkMcLean HospitalBelmont, MA$225,000 – 15 mos.Increasing science, technology,engineering and math in afterschoolNational Conference ofState LegislaturesDenver, CO$400,000 – 24 mos.Informing state legislatures:statewide afterschool policyNational Council of La RazaWashington, DC$200,000 – 24 mos.Latino family engagement andbest practices in afterschoolNational League of Cities InstituteWashington, DC$350,000 – 24 mos.City leaders engaged in afterschoolreform and New Day for LearningNational Summer Learning AssociationBaltimore, MD$200,000 – 24 mos.Building support for summer learningOhio Child Care Resource& Referral AssociationColumbus, OH $225,000 – 36 mos.Ohio statewide afterschool networkOklahoma Institute for Child AdvocacyOklahoma City, OK

–$150,000Adjustment to previous grantProvidence After School AllianceProvidence, RI$75,000 – 7 mos.Providence New Day for Learning

San Francisco School AllianceSan Francisco, CA$75,000 – 8 mos.San Francisco New Day for LearningSouth Dakota Voices for ChildrenSioux Falls, SD$150,000 – 36 mos.South Dakota statewideafterschool networkSynergy Enterprises Inc.

Silver Spring, MD$200,000 – 12 mos.21st Century Community LearningCenters summer instituteUniversity of California – IrvineIrvine, CA$60,000 – 82 mos.Impact of program and practicecharacteristics on participant outcomesUtah Afterschool NetworkSalt Lake City, UT $225,000 – 36 mos.Utah statewide afterschool networkWest Virginia UniversityResearch CorporationMorgantown, WV $225,000 – 36 mos.West Virginia statewideafterschool networkWireless GenerationBrooklyn, NY $400,000 – 12 mos.Technology and afterschoolYWCA of Seattle-KingCounty – Snohomish CountySeattle, WA$225,000 – 36 mos.Washington statewideafterschool network

Subtotal: $9,519,206Learning Beyond the Classroom

Program Area Total $12,059,906Improving Community Education

Expanding EconomicOpportunityIncome SecurityArise Citizens’ Policy ProjectMontgomery, AL$100,000 – 24 mos.State fiscal analysis initiativeBrandeis UniversityWaltham, MA$352,357 – 24 mos.Assets learning projectCalifornia Budget ProjectSacramento, CA

$100,000 – 24 mos.State fiscal analysis initiativeCenter on Budget and Policy PrioritiesWashington, DC$100,000 – 24 mos.State fiscal analysis initiative –D.C. Fiscal Policy InstituteCommunity Economic DevelopmentAssociation of MichiganLansing, MI$200,000 – 24 mos.Michigan communities for financialempowerment network

Earned Asset Resource Network Inc.San Francisco, CA$360,000 – 24 mos.Kindergarten to college evaluationEngage StrategiesSullivan’s Island, SC$95,225 – 13 mos.State children’s savingsaccount assessmentFiscal Policy Institute

Latham, NY $100,000 – 24 mos.State fiscal analysis initiativeFoundation-Administered Projects$155,354Asset -building capacity -building meeting$87,253Fiscal opportunity projectHope Enterprise Corporation

Jackson, MS $100,000 – 24 mos.State fiscal analysis initiativeMaine Center for Economic PolicyAugusta, ME $100,000 – 24 mos.State fiscal analysis initiative

Massachusetts Budgetand Policy CenterBoston, MA$100,000 – 24 mos.State fiscal analysis initiativeMichigan Association of United WaysLansing, MI$100,000 – 12 mos.Michigan benefits access initiativeMichigan League for Public PolicyLansing, MI$100,000 – 24 mos.State fiscal analysis initiativeNorth Carolina Justice CenterRaleigh, NC$100,000 – 24 mos.State fiscal analysis initiativeUniversity of Kansas Centerfor Research Inc.Lawrence, KS $200,000 – 24 mos.Assets and education initiativeUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadison, WI$235,836 – 18 mos.Examining role of emergency savingsfor family financial securityWashington UniversitySt. Louis, MO$300,000 – 24 mos.Expanding child developmentaccounts for educational successand lifelong asset building

Subtotal: $2,986,025Income Security

Reducing Barriers to EmploymentGoodwill Association of MichiganPentwater, MI$125,000 – 12 mos.General purposes




Goodwill Industries ofMid-Michigan Inc.Flint, MI$125,628 – 12 mos.Mid-Michigan GoodTempalternative staffing organizationGoodwill Industries of West MichiganMuskegon, MI$100,000 – 12 mos.GoodTemps

Heartland Alliance for HumanNeeds & Human RightsChicago, IL$87,000 – 12 mos.National transitional jobs networkICA GroupBrookline, MA$200,000 – 12 mos.Alternative staffing allianceSouthwest Center forEconomic IntegrityTucson, AZ $138,600 – 12 mos.Gulf Coast alternative staffing project

Subtotal: $776,228Reducing Barriers to Employment

Retention and Wage ProgressionAmerican Association ofCommunity CollegesWashington, DC$742,500 – 14 mos.Creating commercializationopportunity at community collegesAspen InstituteWashington, DC$100,000 – 12 mos.Low-wage work: what can wedo to improve job quality$250,000 – 12 mos.Sector Skills Academy$200,000 – 24 mos.Workforce intermediariesBipartisan Policy CenterWashington, DC$130,000 – 9 mos.National workforce commissioncreation and feasibility studyCareer Alliance Inc.Flint, MI$500,000 – 15 mos.Flint/Genesee Earn & Learn InitiativeCorporation for a Skilled WorkforceAnn Arbor, MI$250,000 – 12 mos.Building capacity of Michigan’sworkforce systemCounty of Saginaw

Saginaw, MI$300,000 – 14 mos.Saginaw Earn & Learn InitiativeEconomic Mobility CorporationNew York, NY $50,000 – 19 mos.General purposes$250,000 – 12 mos.Project QUEST evaluationFocus: HOPEDetroit, MI$750,000 – 12 mos.General purposes

Insight Center for CommunityEconomic DevelopmentOakland, CA$200,000 – 12 mos.Planning a southern sector initiativeInterfaith Education FundAustin, TX $225,000 – 12 mos.Replicate sectoral initiativesJobs for the Future

Boston, MA$175,000 – 12 mos.Expanding access and successfor low -skilled adultsPer ScholasBronx, NY $40,000 – 12 mos.National expansion initiativePHIBronx, NY $300,000 – 12 mos.General purposes$200,000 – 12 mos.PHI – MichiganProject QUEST Inc.San Antonio, TX $100,000 – 12 mos.General purposesSubtotal: $4,762,500Retention and Wage Progression

Program Area Total: $8,524,753Expanding Economic Opportunity

Building OrganizedCommunitiesBuilding CommunityOrganizing InfrastructureAlliance for JusticeWashington, DC$52,400 – 12 mos.

Resources for evaluatingcommunity organizingBend the Arc: A JewishPartnership for JusticeNew York, NY $90,000 – 12 mos.Organizing apprenticeship programCenter for Community ChangeWashington, DC$340,000 – 24 mos.Building field of community organizing$50,000 – 24 mos.General purposes$250,000 – 12 mos.Intermediary support fororganizing communities

Community CatalystBoston, MA$120,000 – 12 mos.Community learning partnershipCommunity Training andAssistance CenterBoston, MA$250,000 – 12 mos.Intermediary support fororganizing communitiesCommunity Voices HeardNew York, NY $40,000 – 12 mos.New York statewide organizing

Direct Action and ResearchTraining CenterMiami, FL$15,000 – 24 mos.DART organizers institute$290,000 – 24 mos.General purposesEducation Trust Inc.Washington, DC$87,000 – 24 mos.

Education Trust – MidwestFoundation-Administered Project$31,492Intermediary support for organizingcommunities annual meetingGamaliel FoundationChicago, IL$25,000 – 24 mos.General purposesHarriet Tubman Center for Recruitmentand Development of OrganizersDetroit, MI$190,000 – 24 mos.General purposesIAF NorthwestTukwila, WA$130,000 – 24 mos.General purposesInstitute for Wisconsin’s FutureGlendale, WI$120,000 – 24 mos.Implementing demospublic works projectInterfaith Education FundAustin, TX $415,000 – 24 mos.General purposesInterValley ProjectWest Newton, MA$220,000 – 24 mos.Capacity building for InterValley networkIowa Citizens for CommunityImprovementDes Moines, IA$180,000 – 24 mos.Capacity building and expansionIsaiah InstituteNew Orleans, LA$110,000 – 24 mos.General purposesNational Council of La RazaWashington, DC$250,000 – 12 mos.Intermediary support fororganizing communitiesNational Employment Law ProjectNew York, NY $150,000 – 24 mos.General purposes

National Housing InstituteMontclair, NJ $50,000 – 12 mos.Research and writing onorganizing and housingNational People’s ActionChicago, IL$150,000 – 24 mos.General purposes$250,000 – 12 mos.Intermediary support fororganizing communities




Neighborhood Funders GroupWashington, DC$50,000 – 24 mos.General purposesParent/Teacher Home Visit ProjectSacramento, CA$140,000 – 24 mos.General purposesPICO National NetworkOakland, CA

$360,000 – 24 mos.General purposesSouthern Echo Inc.

Jackson, MS $250,000 – 12 mos.Intermediary support fororganizing communitiesVirginia Organizing Inc.Charlottesville, VA$220,000 – 24 mos.General purposes

Subtotal: $4,875,892Building CommunityOrganizing Infrastructure

Program Area Total: $4,875,892Building Organized

Communities

Special InitiativesTransitionsAspen InstituteWashington, DC$300,000 – 13 mos.Demonstrating scale indomestic microenterprise

$175,000 – 18 mos.Innovations for microenterprise field$67,000 – 12 mos.Jobs and microenterprise$250,000 – 12 mos.MicroTestAssociation for Enterprise OpportunityWashington, DC$265,000 – 12 mos.General purposesCenter for Rural AffairsLyons, NE $75,000 – 12 mos.Rural microenterprise developmentCorporation for Enterprise DevelopmentWashington, DC$75,000 – 12 mos.Federal microenterprisepolicy expansion project

Subtotal: $1,207,000Transitions

Exploratory and Special ProjectsDemos: A Network for Ideas and ActionNew York, NY $75,000 – 9 mos.Special edition on povertyGrove Consultants InternationalSan Francisco, CA$210,000 – 19 mos.Illustrated guide to povertyin 21st century AmericaHarlem Children’s ZoneNew York, NY $200,000 – 12 mos.General purposes

Prima Civitas FoundationEast Lansing, MI$850,000 – 12 mos.General purposesPublic/Private VenturesPhiladelphia, PA$150,000 – 16 mos.General purposes

Subtotal: $1,485,000Exploratory and Special Projects


Program Total: $28,152,551Pathways Out of Poverty




Special ProjectsAlliance of Religions and ConservationManchester, England $300,000 – 36 mos.Wildlife trade programDrug Free America Foundation Inc.St. Petersburg, FL$100,000 – 12 mos.Drug awareness educational campaignInstitute for Global EthicsRockport, ME $200,000 – 7 mos.Transition supportJournalism That MattersBellevue, WA

$90,000 – 36 mos.Engaging stories that buildcommunities: the new journalismillumination projectVital Voices Global PartnershipWashington, DC$25,000 – 6 mos.Global leadership awardsWilliam J. Clinton FoundationNew York, NY $20,000 – 12 mos.Clinton Global Initiative

Program Area Total: $735,000Special Projects

Program Total: $735,000Exploratory and Special Projects

Exploratory & Special Projects

Employee & Trustee Grants Employee/TrusteeMatching andTrustee-InitiatedEmployee/Trustee Matching GrantsProgram Area Total: $1,340,760Employee/Trustee Matching

Trustee-Initiated GrantsProgram Area Total: $876,000

Trustee -InitiatedProgram Total: $2,216,760Employee/Trustee Matchingand Trustee -Initiated

TOTAL: $91,031,132All Grants

In addition to its regular grantmaking, the Foundationalso encourages charitable giving by its Trustees andstaff. The Foundation’s match to these contributions isincluded as part of its total grant budget.

Mission: To support unusual or unique opportunities addressing significantnational and international problems. (Proposals are by invitation only; unsolicitedproposals are discouraged.)

GRANT ACTIVITY:$735,000 / 7 GRANTS




Finance





Civil Society143 Grants32.6%

PathwaysOut of

Poverty147 Grants

33.5%

Flint Area77 Grants

17.5 %

Environment65 Grants14.8%

Exploratory &Special Projects7 Grants1.6%

Exploratory &Special Projects

$0.7 / 0.8%

Employee/TrusteeMatching &Trustee-Initiated Grants $2.2 / 2.4%

PathwaysOut of

Poverty$28.2 / 30.9%

Flint Area$31.6 / 34.7%

Environment$9.4 / 10.4%

Civil Society$18.9 / 20.8%

TotalGrowth Assets$1,162.7 / 50.5%

TotalRisk–Reduction

Assets$631.3 / 27.4%

Total Inflation–Protection Assets

$495.7 / 21.6%

TotalOther Assets$11.4 / 0.5%

A S S E T A L L O C AT I O N 1 2 . 3 1 . 1 2

G R A N T M A K I N G A C T I V I T I E S

PROFILE: 2012

TOTAL: 439 GRANTSDoes not include Employee/Trustee Matching & Trustee -

Initiated Grants

TOTAL: $91,031,132

TOTAL: $2,301,140,574

in millions

in millions




Employee/Trustee

Matching

Exploratory

Flint Area

PathwaysOut of Poverty

Environment

Civil Society$0

$25

$50

$75

$100

$125

2012201120102009200820072006200520042003

2003–2012 Grants Awarded by Program ( i n m i l l i o n s )

2003–2012 Selected Financial Information ( i n m i l l i o n s )

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Assets –

Fair Value

$2,373.2 $2,524.7 $2,477.3 $2,626.1 $2,711.5 $1,929.9 $2,079.9 $2,227.4 $2,159.9 $2,301.1

Total Assets –2012 Dollars

2,956.6 3,046.1 2,890.2 2,987.9 2,964.0 2,107.7 2,211.4 2,333.3 2,197.5 2,301.1

12–Month RollingAverage Assets

2,133.6 2,361.9 2,407.0 2,507.0 2,707.4 2,380.2 1,916.0 2,063.4 2,227.7 2,246.8

Total InvestmentIncome (Loss)

477.3 287.8 84.4 290.5 245.0 (684.6) 289.3 275.5 62.8 252.7

Total Investment Income(Loss) 2012 Dollars

594.6 347.3 98.5 330.5 267.8 (747.7) 307.6 288.6 63.9 252.7

Total GrantsAwarded

100.0 98.7 123.2 107.3 108.7 110.4 109.3 92.9 89.3 91.0

Total Expenditures* 124.8 136.3 132.1 142.7 158.2 100.6 134.2 127.9 130.0 110.9

NOTE: Private foundations are required to make qualifying distributions (grant payments and reasonable administrativeexpenses) equal to roughly 5% of their average assets each year. The basis of the 5% calculation is a rolling, or 12–month,average of the foundation’s investment assets.* Total expenditures include grant payments, foundation–administered projects, administrative expenses, excise tax and

investment expenses.

PROFILE: 10-YEAR STATISTICS




B O A R D O F T R U S T E E S

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (the“Foundation”), which comprise the statements of financial position as of December 31, 2012 and 2011,and the related statements of activities and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes to thefinancial statements.

Management’s responsibility for the financial statementsManagement is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements inaccordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes thedesign, implementation and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentationof financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor’s responsibilityOur responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conductedour audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Thosestandards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether thefinancial statements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosuresin the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including theassessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud orerror. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the Foundation’s

preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that areappropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of theFoundation’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating theappropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates madeby management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide abasis for our audit opinion.

OpinionIn our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financialposition of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the results ofits activities and its cash flows for the years then ended in accordance with accounting principles generallyaccepted in the United States of America.

Southeld, MichiganJune 24, 2013

Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants




Statements of Financial Position

Years Ended December 31,

2012 2011Assets

Investments, at fair value:

Public equities $ 481,980,259 $ 478,281,301U.S. Government obligations 46,558,308 43,510,575Corporate bonds 135,174,976 153,220,440Alternatives – limited partnerships 1,092,985,976 962,626,998Alternatives – nonpartnerships 468,890,658 467,729,223Investment trades receivable 6,028,853 19,314,861Cash equivalents 58,160,123 21,571,415

2,289,779,153 2,146,254,813

Cash 4,061,550 4,272,519Accrued interest and dividends 1,697,831 3,247,993Land, building and improvements, net 3,591,587 3,875,947Other assets 2,010,453 2,208,918

Total Assets $ 2,301,140,574 $ 2,159,860,190

Liabilities and Unrestricted Net Assets

Grants payable $ 21,257,356 $ 19,217,992Accounts payable and other liabilities 28,027,909 27,236,358Deferred excise tax 6,942,779 4,137,991

Total Liabilities 56,228,044 50,592,341

Unrestricted Net Assets 2,244,912,530 2,109,267,849

Total Liabilities and Unrestricted Net Assets $ 2,301,140,574 $ 2,159,860,190

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the nancial statements.




Statements of Activities


2012 ) 2011 )Income:

Dividends and interest $ 24,941,430 $ 25,972,778Limited partnership income 53,794,462 23,376,197Net realized gain on investments 26,768,462 74,331,589Net unrealized gain (loss) on investments 148,121,029 (63,807,684)Other income (expense) (926,163) 2,904,999

252,699,220 62,777,879Investment expenses:

Direct investment expenses 5,580,611 5,029,635Provision for excise tax:

Current 2,039,409 1,205,643Deferred expense (income) 2,804,788 (1,110,881)

10,424,808 5,124,397

Net investment income 242,274,412 57,653,482

Grants and operating expenses:Grants 86,951,982 88,273,759Foundation–administered projects 1,274,574 1,086,730Administration expenses 15,674,217 15,244,067

103,900,773 104,604,556Net operating income (loss) 138,373,639 (46,951,074)

Other changes in unrestricted net assets:Pension–related changes other than net

periodic pension cost (1,035,288) (7,025,326)Postretirement health -care related changes

other than net periodic benefit cost

(1,693,670)

(1,032,762)Change in unrestricted net assets 135,644,681 (55,009,162)

Unrestricted net assets:Beginning of year 2,109,267,849 2,164,277,011

End of year $ 2,244,912,530 $ 2,109,267,849





Statements of Cash Flows


2012 2011Cash flows from operating activities:

Increase (decrease) in unrestricted net assets $ 135,644,681 $ (55,009,162)

Adjustments to reconcile change in unrestrictednet assets to cash used by operating activities:

Net realized (gain) loss on investments (26,768,462) (74,331,589)(Income) loss on limited partnerships (53,794,462) (23,376,197)Net unrealized (gain) loss on investments (148,121,029) 63,807,684Excess value of donated securities included with grants – 1,283,056Depreciation expense 292,930 298,449(Increase) decrease in accrued interest and dividends 1,550,162 (2,039,838)(Increase) decrease in other assets 198,465 (185,280)

Increase (decrease) in grants payable 2,039,364 (18,821,013)Increase (decrease) in accounts payable and other liabilities 791,551 7,415,329Increase (decrease) in deferred excise tax liability 2,804,788 (1,110,881)

Total adjustments (221,006,693) (47,060,280)

Net cash used by operating activities (85,362,012) (102,069,442)

Cash flows from investing activities:Proceeds from sales or redemptions of investments 447,153,709 854,272,397Purchases of investments (361,994,096) (762,507,013)Acquisition of building improvements (8,570) –

Net cash provided by investing activities 85,151,043 91,765,384

Net increase (decrease) in cash (210,969) (10,304,058)Cash, beginning of year 4,272,519 14,576,577Cash, end of year $ 4,061,550 $ 4,272,519

Supplemental disclosure of noncash investing activities:

Investment trades receivable (payable) at year end,included with sales/proceeds on investments

$ 5,919,702

$ 18,501,415





Notes to Financial StatementsA. Mission and Grant Programs

The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (the Foundation) is a private grantmaking foundation established in 1926 inFlint, Michigan. The Foundation’s mission is “to support efforts that promote a just, equitable and sustainable society.”The Foundation’s grantmaking activity is organized into four major programs: Civil Society, Environment, Flint Areaand Pathways Out of Poverty. Other grantmaking opportunities, which do not match the major programs, are investigated

through the Foundation’s Exploratory and Special Projects program.

B. Accounting PoliciesThe following is a summary of significant accounting policies followed in the preparation of these financial

statements.

METHOD OF ACCOUNTINGThe financial statements have been prepared on the accrual basis of accounting, which includes recognition of

dividends, interest and other income and expenses as earned or incurred. Trustee and Executive Committee grantactions are recognized as expense on the date of the action. Grants by the President or Executive Committee by specificauthority conferred by the Trustees are recognized as expense on the date the authority is exercised. Grant expense is netof grant refunds.

INCOME TAXESThe Foundation follows the authoritative guidance on accounting for and disclosure of uncertainty in tax positions

(Financial Accounting Standards Board [FASB] — Accounting Standards Codification 740), which requires theFoundation to determine whether a tax position is more likely than not to be sustained upon examination, includingresolution of any related appeals or litigation processes, based on the technical merits of the position.

The Foundation has received a favorable determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service stating that it is exemptfrom federal income taxes under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization described in Sections501(c)(3). However, unrelated business income is subject to taxation. There was no such tax liability in 2012 or 2011.

RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTSIn January 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2010-6, “Fair Value Measurements and

Disclosures (Topic 820) — Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements” (ASU 2010-06). ASU 2010-06clarified existing disclosure requirements and required (a) an entity to disclose separately the amounts of significanttransfers in and out of Levels 1 and 2 fair value measurements and to describe the reasons for those transfers; (b) an entityto disclose all transfers in and out of Level 3 and the reasons for those transfers; and (c) information about purchases,sales, issuances and settlements to be presented separately (i.e., present the activity on a gross basis rather than net) in thereconciliation for fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3 inputs). The new disclosuresand clarifications of existing disclosures were effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2009, except forthe disclosure requirements related to the purchases, sales, issuances and settlements in the roll-forward activity of Level3 fair value measurements, which were effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010. The Foundationfully adopted the guidance as of January 1, 2011. Adoption of this guidance did not have an impact on the fair valuedetermination of applicable investments; however, it did require additional disclosures. See Note C — Investment

Securities and Note D — Fair Value Measurements for the additional disclosures related to the amended guidance.In May 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurements and

Disclosures (Topic 820) — Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirementsin U.S. GAAP and IFRS’s” (ASU 2011-04). ASU 2011-04 clarifies the application of existing fair value measurementrequirements, changes certain principles related to measuring fair value and requires additional disclosure about fairvalue measurements. Specifically, the guidance specifies that the concepts of highest and best use and valuation premisesin a fair value measurement are only relevant when measuring the fair value of nonfinancial assets, whereas they are notrelevant when measuring the fair value of financial assets and liabilities. Required disclosures are expanded under thenew guidance, especially for fair value measurements that are categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, forwhich quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used and a narrative description of the valuation of the




investment portfolio (see Note D) and the immateriality of the Foundation’s nonfinancial assets in regard to the “highestand best use” premise for nonfinancial assets.

CASH EQUIVALENTSCash equivalents with original maturities of three months or less are reflected at market value and include short-term

notes and commercial paper, which are included with investments.

CONCENTRATION OF CREDIT RISKThe Foundation maintains certain cash accounts, the balances of which, at times, may exceed federally insured limits.The Foundation has not experienced any losses in such accounts. Management believes the Foundation is not exposed toany significant credit risk on cash.

OTHER ASSETSIncluded in other assets are land and buildings that were purchased by the Foundation for charitable purposes and are

recorded at cost.

LAND, BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENTSLand, building and improvements are recorded at cost. Upon sale or retirement of land, building and improvements,

the cost and related accumulated depreciation are eliminated, and the resulting gain or loss is included in current income.

Depreciation of building and improvements is provided over the estimated useful lives of the respective assets on astraight-line basis, ranging from six to 50 years.

Costs of office furnishings and equipment are consistently charged to expense because the Foundation does not deemsuch amounts to be sufficiently material to warrant capitalization and depreciation.

A summary of land, building and improvement holdings at year end is as follows:

2012 2011

Land $ 397,852 $ 397,852

Building and improvements 9,368,035 9,382,992

Less accumulated depreciation (6,174,300) (5,904,897)

$ 3,591,587 $ 3,875,947

ESTIMATESThe preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United

States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assetsand liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reportedamounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

INVESTMENTSEquity investments with readily determinable fair values, and all debt securities, are recorded on the trade date and are

stated at market value based primarily on December 31 published quotations. Gains and losses from sales of securitiesare determined on an average cost basis.

Equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values, representing amounts in venture capitaland limited partnerships, are recorded on the trade date. These investments are stated at an estimate of fair value asdetermined in good faith by the general partner or fund managers. The Foundation believes the amounts recordedapproximate fair value.

The Foundation’s 17.9 percent investment in United States Sugar Corporation (USSC), a non-publicly traded securitywith no readily determinable fair value, is priced based on an independent valuation of the USSC stock on a non-marketable minority interest basis.

The Foundation is party to certain limited partnership agreements, whereby the Foundation is committed to investfuture funds into these partnerships. As of December 31, 2012, the Foundation has $383 million in outstanding limited

partnership commitments, including both domestic and international partnerships.




Temporary investments in partnerships that are publicly traded and where the Foundation has no committed capital areincluded with equity securities and not limited partnerships for financial statement presentation.

FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION OF EXPENSESThe costs of operating the Foundation have been allocated among program-related, communications and administrative

expenses (all of which are included with administration expenses on the Statement of Activities). Program-relatedexpenses pertain principally to the direct programmatic grantmaking functions of the Foundation, such as reviewing

proposals and awarding, monitoring and evaluating grants, whereas communications expenses include activities directlyrelated to the Foundation’s external communications efforts. Administrative expenses include all other non-program andnon-communications related operating expenses of the Foundation.

RECLASSIFICATIONSCertain amounts in the 2011 statements have been reclassified to conform to the 2012 presentation.

C. Investment SecuritiesThe following is a summary of cost and approximate fair values of the investment securities held at December 31 (in

thousands):

2012 2011

Fair Value Cost Basis Fair Value Cost Basis

Public equities $ 481,980 $ 409,902 $ 478,281 $ 455,352

U.S. Government obligations 46,558 40,136 43,511 38,106

Corporate bonds 135,175 120,150 153,220 148,138

Limited Partnerships 1,092,986 907,755 962,627 832,834

Non -Partnerships 468,891 377,545 467,729 408,905

Investment trades receivable 6,029 6,029 19,315 19,315

Cash equivalents 58,160 58,106 21,572 21,570

$ 2,289,779 $ 1,919,623 $ 2,146,255 $ 1,924,220

Investments valued at Net Asset Value (NAV) as of December 31, 2012, consisted of the following:

Fair ValueUnfunded

CommitmentsRedemptionFrequency

RedemptionNotice Period

Equity securities (a) $ 396,492,743 $ –Quarterly to Annual

if applicable5 days to 4 months

if applicable

Limited par tnerships (b) 1,092,985,976 383,000,000Quarterly to Annual

if applicable5 days to 4 months

if applicable

Total investments at NAV $ 1,489,478,719 $ 383,000,000

(a) This category includes investments in real estate funds, hedge funds and international equity. The NAV of thereal estate funds are as provided by the fund and determined using the fair value option or depreciable cost basis ofthe underlying assets. The NAV of the hedge and international equity funds is as provided by the fund using variousobservable and unobservable market valuation techniques as allowed by the FASB. The majority of the hedge funds offerquarterly to annual liquidity options that require advance notice from 5 business days to 4 months, with various “lock-up” and “gate” provisions, while the real estate funds do not offer redemption options.

(b) This category includes investments in private equity funds, public equity funds, hedge funds, real estate funds andenergy funds. The NAV of these funds are as provided by the general partner or fund manager using various observableand unobservable market valuation techniques as allowed by the FASB. The majority of the hedge funds offer quarterlyto annual liquidity options that require advance notice from 5 business days to 4 months, with various “lock-up” and




“gate” provisions, while the private equity, real estate and energy funds do not offer redemption options. The publicequity funds offer a monthly redemption frequency with 30 days’ notice.

See footnote D for additional information regarding fair value measurements.

Due to the various liquidity limitations on the above referenced funds, the Foundation maintains a significant portionof its investments in highly liquid and other Level 1 assets so as to ensure that grantmaking and administrative expense

needs are covered into the foreseeable future.The Foundation has significant amounts of investment instruments. Investment securities, in general, are exposed tovarious risks, such as interest rate, credit and overall market volatility. Due to the level of risk associated with certaininvestment securities, it is reasonably possible that changes in the values of investment securities will occur in the nearterm and that such changes could materially affect the amounts reported in the financial statements.

D. Fair Value MeasurementsFair Value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit

price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. In accordance with the authoritative guidance on fair value measurements anddisclosures under GAAP, the Foundation adopted a framework for measuring fair value under generally accepted

accounting principles that establishes a fair value hierarchy, which requires an entity to maximize the use of observableinputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. The standard describes three levels ofinputs that may be used to measure fair value:

Level 1 — Quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2 — Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable marketdata for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

Level 3 — Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fairvalue of the assets or liabilities. Level 3 assets and liabilities include financial instruments for which fair value isdetermined using pricing models, discounted cash-flow methodologies or similar techniques, as well as instrumentsfor which the determination of fair value requires significant management judgment or estimation. This categorygenerally includes certain private debt and equity instruments and alternative investments. Also included in Level 3are investments measured using NAV per share, or its equivalent, that can never be redeemed at the NAV or for whichredemption at NAV is uncertain due to lock-up periods or other investment restrictions.

Generally, assets held at the Foundation’s custodian, Comerica Bank, include cash equivalents, U.S. governmentobligations, corporate bonds and equity securities, which are publicly traded in active markets and are considered Level1 assets. Equity securities purchased and held directly by the Foundation include private equities, hedge funds, real estatefunds and energy funds.

The following discussion describes the valuation methodologies used for financial assets measured at fair value.The techniques utilized in estimating the fair values are affected by the assumptions used, including discount rates andestimates of the amount and timing of future cash flows. Care should be exercised in deriving conclusions about theFoundations’ financial position based on the fair value information of financial assets presented below.

The valuation of nonpublic or alternative investments requires significant judgment by the General Partner orFund Manager due to the absence of quoted market values, inherent lack of liquidity and the long-term nature ofsuch assets. Private equity investments are valued initially based upon transaction price, excluding expenses. Year-end valuations are as provided by the General Partner or Fund Manager, which are tied to capital statements and/or audited financial statements when available, and are carried at NAV or its equivalent. These valuations includeestimates, appraisals, assumptions and methods that are reviewed by the Foundations’ independent investmentadvisors and management.




The following table presents the investments carried on the statement of financial position by level within the valuationhierarchy as of December 31, 2012:

Investment Type Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total

Public equities $ 481,980,259 $ – $ – $ 481,980,259

U.S. Government obligations 46,558,308 – – 46,558,308

Corporate bonds 135,174,976 – – 135,174,976

Limited partnerships – – 1,092,985,976 1,092,985,976

Non -partnerships – – 468,890,658 468,890,658

Investment trades receivable 6,028,853 – – 6,028,853

Cash equivalents 58,160,123 – – 58,160,123

Total $ 727,902,519 $ – $1,561,876,634 $2,289,779,153

A summary of Level 3 activity for the year is as follows:

Balance, December 31, 2011 $1,430,356,221

Purchases 219,932,532

Sales (238,328,908)

Realized gains 61,957,961

Unrealized gains 87,958,828


The following table presents the investments carried on the statement of financial position by level within the valuationhierarchy as of December 31, 2011:

Investment Type Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total

Public equities $ 478,281,301 $ – $ – $ 478,281,301

U.S. Government obligations 43,510,575 – – 43,510,575Corporate bonds 153,220,440 – – 153,220,440

Limited partnerships – – 962,626,998 962,626,998

Non -partnerships – – 467,729,223 467,729,223

Investment trades receivable 19,314,861 – – 19,314,861

Cash equivalents 21,571,415 – – 21,571,415

Total $ 715,898,592 $ – $1,430,356,221 $2,146,254,813

A summary of Level 3 activity for the year is as follows:


Purchases 313,351,127

Sales (181,886,300)

Transfers – donated securities (1,301,400)

Realized gains 30,011,776

Unrealized gains 58,824,012







In addition, the Foundation has also approved grants that require certain conditions to be met by the grantee.Conditional grants excluded from the Foundation’s financial statements totaled $2,479,959 and $1,129,272 as ofDecember 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Grant activity for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, was as follows:

2012 2011

Undiscounted grants payable, January 1 $ 19,471,161 $ 38,420,159

Grants approved 89,680,445 89,593,316

109,151,606 128,013,475

Less grants paid by program:

Civil Society 15,843,636 23,110,131

Environment 7,977,874 14,519,683

Flint Area 32,767,840 27,350,987

Pathways Out of Poverty 28,360,191 40,538,805

Other* 2,691,760 3,022,708

87,641,301 108,542,314

Undiscounted grants payable, December 31 $ 21,510,305 $ 19,471,161

*Includes Exploratory, Special Projects and Matching Gifts Program.






For measurement purposes, an initial annual rate of 8 percent for Pre-65 and 6 percent for Post-65 in the per capita costof health care was used. These rates were assumed to decrease gradually each year to an ultimate rate of 4.5 percent byyear 2021.

ASSET HOLDINGSThe investment strategy is to manage investment risk through prudent asset allocation that will produce a rate of return

commensurate with the plan’s obligations. The Foundation’s expected long-term rate of return on plan assets is based

upon historical and future expected returns of multiple asset classes as analyzed to develop a risk-free real rate of returnfor each asset class. The overall rate of return for each asset class was developed by combining a long-term inflationcomponent, the risk-free real rate of return and the associated risk premium.

A summary of asset holdings in the pension plan as of December 31, 2012, is as follows:

Asset Class Percent of Assets Target Allocation

Domestic stock 45.6% 45.0%

International stock 16.3% 15.0%

Real estate 5.0% 5.0%

Real asset 5.0% 5.0%

Debt securities 28.1% 30.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

The following table presents the pension assets by level within the valuation hierarchy as of December 31, 2012:

Investment Type Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Equity securities $ – $ 28,607,913 $ –

Real estate – 2,310,722 –

Real asset – 2,325,556 –

Debt securities – 12,964,994 –

Total $ – $ 46,209,185 $ –

EXPECTED CONTRIBUTIONSThe Foundation expects to contribute $2,733,440 to its pension plans and $490,000 to its postretirement medical plan

in 2013. For the unfunded plans, contributions are deemed equal to expected benefit payments.

EXPECTED BENEFIT PAYMENTSThe Foundation expects to pay the following amounts for pension benefits, which reflect future service as appropriate,

and expected postretirement benefits:

Year Pension Plans PostretirementHealth–Care Benefits

2013 $ 2,733,440 $ 490,000

2014 2,733,440 530,000

2015 2,873,440 590,000

2016 2,843,440 600,000

2017 2,923,440 640,000

2018–2022 15,197,200 3,640,000




Effective 2012, the fully insured premium has been reduced for the Medicare reimbursement; therefore, theFoundation no longer receives a Medicare D subsidy.

DEFINED CONTRIBUTION 401(k) PLANIn addition to the above, the Foundation maintains a 401(k) defined contribution retirement plan for all eligible

employees. The Foundation matches employee contributions up to $3,000 per year. For the years ending December 31,2012 and 2011, the Foundation contributed $215,870 and $215,433, respectively.

H. Subsequent EventsThe Foundation evaluated its December 31, 2012, financial statements for subsequent events through June 24, 2013,

the date the financial statements were available to be issued. The Foundation is not aware of any subsequent events thatwould require recognition or disclosure in the financial statements.

Administration and Investment ExpensesAdministration Total Investment Total

2012 2011 2012 2011

Salaries $ 7,494,763 $ 7,656,072 $ 2,224,297 $ 2,028,044Other personnel costs 4,637,724 4,130,039 806,162 748,422Operations 1,397,871 1,359,150 308,733 312,289Professional fees 1,044,440 946,386 2,168,671 1,886,622Travel and business expenses 901,779 934,754 72,748 54,258Publications and contract services 197,640 217,666 – –

$ 15,674,217 $ 15,244,067 $ 5,580,611 $ 5,029,635






2012 Annual Report 752012 Annual Report 75

Trustees & Staff




Board and Committees

Board of Trustees*William S. White

ChairmanFrederick S. Kirkpatrick +

Vice Chairman A. Marshall Acuff Jr.Tiffany W. Lovett Webb F. MartinOlivia P. MaynardJohn MorningMaryanne Mott Charlie NelmsDouglas X. PatiñoWilliam H. PiperMarise M.M. Stewart Claire M. White

Audit CommitteeWebb F. Martin

ChairmanFrederick S. Kirkpatrick Olivia P. MaynardJohn MorningCharlie Nelms

Executive CommitteeWilliam S. White

ChairmanFrederick S. Kirkpatrick Webb F. MartinMaryanne Mott William H. Piper

Investment CommitteeWilliam S. White

Chairman A. Marshall Acuff Jr.Elizabeth T. Frank Frederick S. Kirkpatrick Webb F. Martin

William H. Piper

* The Members of the corporation are Frederick S. Kirkpatrick,Tiffany W. Lovett, Maryanne Mott, William H. Piper,Marise M.M. Stewart, Claire M. White, Ridgway H. Whiteand William S. White.

+ Serves as presiding/lead outside director.

Board and committees lists as of September 30, 2013




Officers and Staff

Executive OfficeWilliam S. White

President and Chief Executive Of icerRidgway H. White

Vice President – Special ProjectsJennifer Liversedge

Assistant to the President and Program Of icerLisa R. Maxwell

Executive Assistant

Administrative GroupPhillip H. Peters

Group Vice President – Administrationand Secretary/Treasurer

A DMINISTRATIVE S ERVICES

Gregory S. Hopton Accounting Manager*Lesle Berent

Senior Accountant Rebecca Burns

Administrative Accountant Collette Pries

Accountant Debra L. Cormier

Payroll Administrator Annette M. Chamberlain

Administrative SecretaryKim R. McDonaldJill A. Powell

Word ProcessorsTeresa A. Littlejohn

Receptionist Debra E. Bullen

Building ManagerBilly M. Powell

Building Operations SupervisorGilbert MedranoPatrick Turowicz

Building Operations Assistants

G RANTS A DMINISTRATION

Mary A. Gailbreath Director, Grants Administration

and Assistant Secretary/Treasurer

Frederick L. Kump Grants Financial Analyst

and Program Of icerCindy S. CompeauS. Renee Jackson

Grants AccountantsMary Beth Smith

Administrative Secretary, ProgramReview Committee

Jean M. Johnson Administrative Assistant

Deborah K. Reid Secretary

H UMAN R ESOURCES

Julie M. Flynn Human Resources Manager

Ona Kay Goza Administrative Secretary

I NFORMATION S ERVICES

Gavin T. Clabaugh Vice President – Information Services

Michael L. Wright Information Services Manager

Linda L. Davidson

Senior Information TechnologySupport Analyst Glen A. Birdsall

LibrarianEllen Chien

Information Technology Support AnalystJ. Gay McArthur

Library Administrative Assistant




CommunicationsCarol D. Rugg

Vice President – Communications Ann F. Richards

Senior Communications Of icerDuane M. Elling

Communications Of icerMacie Schriner

Communications Of icer – Online StrategiesTeri L. Chambry

Administrative SecretaryJon’Tise B. Samuels

Administrative Assistant

InvestmentsJay C. Flaherty

Vice President – Investmentsand Chief Investment Of icer

*Michael J. Smith Vice President – Investments

and Chief Investment Of icerKenneth C. AustinCheryl GarneauStephen W. Vessells

Investment ManagersLaura R. Bechard

Investment Of ice Administratorand IS Coordinator

Alicia T. Aguilar Assistant Investment Administrator

Laura D. Franco Administrative Assistant

ProgramsNeal R. Hegarty

Vice President – ProgramsRuth M. Woodruff

Administrative Secretary

C IVIL S OCIETY

Shannon L. Lawder Program Director

Central/Eastern Europe and RussiaJ. Walter Veirs

Regional DirectorVera DakovaRoss Maclaren

Program Of icersMichele H. Neumann

Secretary

South AfricaVuyiswa Sidzumo

Director, South AfricaMamotshidisi Mohapi

Associate Program Of icerLydia Molapo

Administrative Secretary

United States andGlobal Philanthropy and Nonprofit SectorNicholas S. Deychakiwsky

Program Of icerDiane M. Gildner

Secretary




E NVIRONMENT

Samuel B. Passmore Program Director

Traci R. RomineSandra N. Smithey

Program Of icersJumana Z. Vasi

Associate Program Of icerSandra J. SmithJudy L. Wallace

Secretaries

F LINT A REA

Kimberly S. Roberson Program Director

Alicia E.M. Kitsuse Program Of icer

Jennifer M. Acree*Shannon E. PolkChristopher J. Stallworth

Associate Program Of icersChristine L. Anderson

Secretary

P ATHWAYS O UT OF P OVERTY

Kyle Caldwell Program Director

Christine A.W. DobyGwynn HughesBenita D. Melton

Yazeed A. Moore Program Of icers*Megan Russell JohnsonKari M. Pardoe DeJuan J. Woods

Associate Program Of icersWynette L. AdamsonCrystal L. Bright Delia Cappel

Secretaries

Loaned StaffKaren B. Aldridge-Eason

Foundation Liaison, Of ice of Gov. Rick Snyder, State ofMichigan (formerly Program Director, Flint Area)

Contract Employees/ConsultantsKaitlyn C. Adler

Grants AdministrationMorris J. L. Arvoy

CommunicationsVyacheslav Bakhmin

Civil Society program (Russia)Joumana M. Klanseck

Information ServicesMaggie Jaruzel Potter

CommunicationsShaun Samuels

Civil Society program (South Africa) Amy C. Shannon

Environment Svitlana Suprun

Civil Society program (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine)Darlene Wood

AdministrationCristina Wright

Communications

*No longer with the Foundation

Staff list as of September 30, 2013. This list re lects everyone whoworked at the Foundation since the 2011 Annual Report was published

in the fall of 2012.For an updated staff list, please visit our Web siteat www.mott.org.








Documents

Community Foundations: Rooted locally. Growing globally