An Interview With Jack Litzenberg
Senior Program Officer, Charles Stuart Mott Foundation

Jack Litzenberg is a Senior Program Officer at the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. Bob Jaquay interviewed him on March 14, 2000. Jack started out as a housing and community development professional, working in Savannah, Georgia after graduate school. He came to Flint, Michigan in 1975, where his first experiences with the Mott Foundation were as a grantee. In 1994, in recognition of his unique contributions, Jack received the Council on Foundations’ Robert W. Scrivner award for creative grantmaking.

Bob Jaquay: In your 30-year view, what kind of changes have you seen in the types and amounts of grants going into neighborhoods and communities?

Jack Litzenberg: I think dollars have actually declined, not only from the philanthropic sector, but also, more significantly, from the government sector. Remember, I started out in the Great Society programs. I wish that we had had the time then to build the capacity for those programs, even though I do believe that they accomplished quite a bit. When I was in Savannah, a lot of today’s leaders from the African-American community had their first professional job opportunities then. So one of the unexpected effects of the Model Cities program, for example, was to create a whole cadre of minority community development professionals. Many people, such as Otis Johnson from Savannah State University, remain committed today.

I do think there’s more creativity today. It’s just a shame that in areas like affordable housing, where we did find a very good solution with the Section 8 program, the government’s commitment waned. As I look back, we’ve learned a lot, but the absence of a sound urban policy means we couldn’t replicate successes, one reason why today urban poverty is even more concentrated, and the urban infrastructure is in such a state of decay. 

BJ: Do you see any hope for an urban policy emerging?

JL: I think one will, but I don’t know if I’m going to be around to see it. But it must, because we can’t afford the wasting of human capital that we’re seeing in our central cities today. One day we’ll start thinking as a society again, at least that’s my hope. Today it’s all about individualism and about what’s happening to our own kids, not what’s happening to our neighbor’s kids. I hate to say it, but the Reagan years certainly did change the country. Reagan certainly took us from a social orientation to an individual orientation and we have not gone back.

I do have hope. I see creativity. There are emerging social entrepreneurs out there, at least in the poverty alleviation area. A number of younger people are doing great things and the key will be seeing if this movement continues across the country. 

BJ: You mentioned poverty alleviation efforts. Can you tell us a little about Mott’s Pathways Out of Poverty Program and how Mott came to frame the program as it exists today?

JL: First of all, this Pathways out of Poverty plan is the second iteration of the poverty plan here at Mott. We had an initial six-year effort that ended in 1999. Our new plan improves on the old one in four areas. First, it is more focused. The new program has a community organizing component, an economic opportunity component, and an education component; that’s it. We have also set aside money for phasing out past programs and investigating new areas of opportunity.

Second, the predominant theme of our grantmaking is to create systems change for alleviating poverty.

Third, Mr. Mott believed in community and that the community made him what he was. Hence, our tradition and our ethics are to demonstrate at the community level whether something works or not. Only then will we try to promote public policy and systems change around it.

The fourth feature is the benchmarks. We have benchmarks for every component – for changes we want to make, and the outcomes we want to see from our programs. It’s supposed to be a “living” benchmark opportunity. This means that as we learn from our grantees about funded interventions, benchmarks may change or evolve.

BJ: How can other funders learn about your progress?

JL: A lot of effort at the Mott Foundation is spent on communication. We’ve posted web updates and we’ll continue to do that. We also use a wide array of publications.

As a program officer, I have two sets of learning communities – one among our grantees and another beyond our grantees. We’re trying to accelerate communication to both sets. Peggy Clark at the Aspen Institute has done a tremendous job pioneering learning evaluations, which I use. In such an evaluation we try to get the grantees involved to understand evaluation. Then we have them participate in the design and provide them with technical assistance for program implementation along the way. That way they can improve their programs in the midst of an intervention.

The evaluations we try to fund aren’t a right or wrong kind of a thing. We want grantees to be learning and building capacity along the way, so that we can best judge whether the grantee is realizing best practice before we assess the merit of the intervention.

BJ: As you apply technical assistance and learnings resources, how do you further refine demonstration and implementation down the road and how do the lessons from this process get applied?

JL: The evaluator gathers our grantees in a particular learning cluster meeting a few times a year. We combine site visits with a learning cluster. We have a topic and three-day session around it. Other people who are interested in that subject matter outside of the learning cluster can usually access information through subsequent publications or through the reports on the Mott web site.

The evaluators also maintain a listserv among cluster grantees. Cluster members can dialogue with the evaluator, a technical assistance provider, or other grantees. The purpose is to build a community that promotes dialogue and learning within the grantee cluster.

Most of my interventions last three years. Outcomes are usually measured over time because I want to capture change over time, especially in the sectoral employment initiative, where we’re trying to assess income growth and job retention.

BJ: I imagine that your sectoral employment strategy work is one of your learning clusters.

JL: There are actually two under the sectoral strategy, an older one and a newer one. We did the first one with six well-known sectoral programs at the time. That learning cluster is now in its third year and we’ll have the final outcomes and lessons learned ready to disseminate about a year from now. The Aspen Institute is presently publishing individual project case studies.

The second sectoral employment learning cluster is composed of ten less mature interventions. Five programs are aimed at accessing low-income people to well-paying jobs they did not have access to before. The other five programs in the cluster are aimed at making a job that a low-income person already has access to better paying. Public/Private Ventures will be issuing reports through 2003.

BJ: What kinds of information will come from the learnings?

JL: The second demonstration is more centered on identifying and implementing the systemic change grantees are trying to achieve. Several grantees are already well on their way to creating that change. We also wanted to test the theory that if change is created, does the particular intervention, whether creating wage mobility or increasing incomes, continue over time and affect a significant number of people through the systemic change process. It’s a very ambitious undertaking, maybe overly so.

BJ: How does your style of learning and technical assistance and learning clusters square with the increasing favor operating grants enjoy as a sort of overall grantmaking style of a foundation?

JL: It doesn’t square too well. I feel pretty much out of date in that regard. I do believe in giving general-purpose grants, but after I know the grantee and what they can accomplish. I don’t normally provide general support in a first grant. My major worry is accountability from a general-purpose grantee. Saying all of that, I am willing to pump general-purpose money into in an older relationship. Cooperative Home Care Associates gets general-purpose grant support every year from my portfolio. We’re in with them for the long haul. I think what they do works very well, so they now get general-purpose support. 

BJ: In 2002 Congress will be examining renewal of the welfare reform law passed in 1996. It’s obviously a topic that is at the center of efforts for moving people out of poverty. What should foundations do relative to that debate?

JL: We can allow voices that were not heard the first time around to speak, individually and collectively. Mott has retained a consultant who’s interviewed both major policy and grassroots organizations about this issue. Surprisingly they are saying a lot of the same things about what needs to be done and they’re saying that it needs to be done early. So right now we’re making decisions. We’re also reviewing the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, a coalition being organized by the Center for Community Change, as well as gathering our own grantees to network and document their experiences.

Personally, I’d like to push the idea of people being able to “buy back” their safety net. If you’ve been in the workforce for a year, then just like with employment insurance, you should be allowed to buy back some of your safety net. I think it would help if a significant economic downturn occurred. 

BJ: You’re part of the committee organizing NFG’s 2000 conference in Detroit. As we look toward the conference, what new directions do you think NFG members should look at as they think about how to close the gap between the rich and poor during this time of prosperity?

JL: I think many of the NFG members have been trying to alleviate poverty for a long time. I think we need to pay more attention to community organizing. If I can be critical of myself as well as others, we don’t get into the power dynamics of our democracy enough. I think that we’re going to have to turn to organizing as a way to try to get the gap narrowed between the “haves” and “have nots.” I think organizing can be a very effective tool. Maybe it can help us view ourselves better as a society and not as individuals. Maybe it can get our society to care about the many who do not realize the fruits of our economy.

Back to NFG Home Page.

1301 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 500 • Washington, DC 20036 • Phone: (202) 833-4690 • Fax: (202) 833-4694 • nfg@nfg.org
Copyright © 1998-2008 • Web Site Usage Policies