| |||
The following is an excerpt from Grantmaking with a Compass: The Challenges of Geography by Deanne Stone
INTRODUCTION Family life was once defined by proximity. Extended family members lived close by, socialized frequently, and often worked together in the family business. Children grew up surrounded by grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, and the sense of being a family developed naturally from their shared experiences and their identity in the community. Rooted in one place, families felt a loyalty to their home town and a concern for what happened there. Today, family members typically live in different cities and states and, sometimes, in different countries. Some move several times in their adult lives and others divide their time between homes in different regions. Children may see their grandparents only a few times a year and hardly know their extended family members. Further splintering families are divorce and remarriage. Households are broken up and families blended, often resulting in more moves and a confusing mix of relatives, traditions, and values. With each new generation, the branches of the family grow farther apart and farther away from their origins. Geographic dispersion is a fact of contemporary American life that has forever altered family relationships. Inevitably, it has affected family foundations, too. More and more, family board members are scattered about the country. Consider these situations. A foundation set up to serve a particular area no longer has family members residing there. A new foundation struggles to define a mission that engages and motivates family members living in different states. A fourth-generation foundation brings on to the board cousins who grew up in different parts of the country and who have little in common other than a blood relationship to the donor. A small foundation that has family members spread across the country, no staff, and a limited travel budget spends weeks juggling schedules to find convenient dates for board meetings. Geographic dispersion presents challenges for family foundations precisely because family members are involved. It would not be an issue for private foundations run by boards made up of unrelated professionals. A private foundation that funded in one area would simply recruit board members from that area who had expertise valuable to the foundation. Family foundations are different. They want family members to be involved and they make accommodations to keep them involved, even if it means more planning, more expenses, more complications. What matters most is preserving the foundation and the family’s philanthropic legacy. Family foundations are different in another way. When board members of geographically dispersed family foundations sit down around the meeting table, they create a special dynamic. They bring the warmth and commitment of family and a common heritage and memory; they may also bring a formality that comes from infrequent personal contact. And they may bring the foibles of all families-the rivalries, grudges, and irrational but powerful emotions that give family life its unique force. This quality forever separates family foundations from all other private foundations and indeed from every other institution in philanthropy. This monograph addresses five topics particular to geographically dispersed family foundations:
How boards manage these situations varies, depending on what the families want to achieve and the circumstances with which they are dealing. For some, engaging the interests of family members is the top priority. These boards typically broaden the geographic scope of their grantmaking, encouraging trustees to give grants to organizations in the communities where they live. For others, maintaining a narrow grantmaking focus by program issue is the best way to manage geographic dispersion. They tend to limit the geographic area where they give and the number of program areas, too. For still others, the main goal is preserving the donors’ values and legacy. Rather than seeing geographic dispersion as a cry for change, they see it as a call to renew their commitment to the mission and practices that have sustained the family and foundation over the years. These boards welcome family members who endorse the foundation’s goals and often invite community members to work with the family, either as board members or advisory board members. As readers will see from the stories told in this monograph, the real challenge for family boards is balancing the needs and interests of the family and the foundation. The information presented here was collected in telephone interviews. I started off with a short list of families I knew who were wrestling with the issue of geographic dispersion. They, in turn, referred me to other families. One of my best sources for referrals was the Internet. I placed announcements on the list serves of three organizations that work with wealthy individuals and received eight responses. In all, I spoke with trustees representing 25 family foundations around the country. I was interested in hearing trustees’ perspectives on geographic dispersion: how did it affect their foundation and their family, and what strategies did the board come up with for handling it? This monograph describes their experiences. Others may face different circumstances and choose alternative approaches. Although no family’s situation will be exactly like that of any other’s, I hope the variety of examples presented here will suggest possibilities on how readers can respond to their own situations. I was fortunate to speak with thoughtful individuals who furthered my understanding of the issues, changed my thinking about some aspects of the problem, and suggested consequences and permutations of geographic dispersion that I hadn't imagined. To all those who graciously agreed to be interviewed, my heartfelt thanks. © 2003 National Center for Family Philanthropy. All Rights Reserved.
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
 | |||
