|
Case Studies
From the beginning, the NFG staff and members who conceptualized this toolbox
felt strongly that it must share colleagues' experiences with jobs funding.
Thus, we conclude with a set of case studies documenting why and how three
foundation colleagues launched job initiatives.
Foundations have returned to the jobs issue relatively recently - that's
why the centerpiece of each of these cases is a new program. Given that
the cases describe new programs, it is still too early to evaluate their
success or effectiveness. And evaluation is not the intent: these case
studies are presented instead as three good examples of how grantmakers
have learned about the issues and shaped grant programs, including some
of the questions answered along the way and lessons learned from initial
implementation.
The three foundation case studies were chosen from among NFG's member
organizations by NFG staff in consultation with members and the project
team. Although the cases do not present the full breadth of current grantmaking
related to jobs, wages and training, they are examples of different approaches
taken by foundations of different types and sizes.
The three foundations are:
These cases were developed using two primary modes of inquiry - interviews
and document review. In all cases, interviews were conducted with foundation
staff. In one instance - the Discount Foundation - the interviews extended
to members of the Board of Directors. Interviews were supplemented by documents,
many of them internal.
Crosscutting Themes
While the cases were chosen for their variety, they share common characteristics.
First and foremost, each foundation has an explicit concern about poverty
that has both motivated and directed program development. Also striking
is a focus on systemic change. All of the programs prioritize grant recipient
potential to change the way major systems function.
In fact, a grasp of the relationship between their activities and desired
systems change set successful applicants to Mott's program apart from others.
The Pittsburgh Foundation assessed applicant strategies for possible adoption
by state government. And the Discount Foundation's overall program is aimed
at changing systems.
For the Discount and Pittsburgh Foundations, programs emerged partially
because the time was right. The shape of The Pittsburgh Foundation's Gaps
Initiative is directly linked to changes in the federal welfare system.
Discount's new program was enhanced by the emergence of a new era in organized
labor.
There are also commonalties in some of the practical and structural
elements of the foundations' programs. For instance:
-
Both Mott and The Pittsburgh Foundation used the Request for Proposal (RFP)
process to generate applications and make grant decisions. In both instances,
the criteria that shaped the foundations' decision-making included knowledge
of and/or a track record of working with the population to be served, and
an understanding of employer needs. For Mott's program, successful grant
applicants faced a tougher standard - evidence of actual employer involvement
in the project.
-
All of the foundations reached beyond their traditional networks to shape
their programs, particularly to generate proposals.
-
At the same time, foundation board and staff networks made, and continue
to make, extremely important contributions to the grant programs.
-
The Pittsburgh and Discount Foundation boards broke new ground with their
programs. The Pittsburgh Foundation board's $500,000 commitment to the
Gaps Initiative was its largest single investment ever. The Discount Foundation's
board awarded the largest set of grants in its history - $405,000 - in
the first round of the "Jobs and Living Wages for the Poor" program.
-
Mott and Pittsburgh Foundations have developed formal opportunities for
their grantees to work and learn together. In Pittsburgh, the "learning
community" is small and functioning locally. Mott is developing a "virtual"
learning community of grantees and other applicants as well. Note: A learning
community is a cluster of individuals committed to learning, with and from
each other, about something in which they share an interest.
-
The Mott and Pittsburgh Foundations are now formally evaluating their programs.
Finally, while the three foundations' programs are not directly or intentionally
linked, they represent most of the continuum of activity necessary to change
the jobs and wages equation for poor people. The Discount and Mott programs
provide a couple of examples of the important interaction between different
types of funding, although the funders did not consult with each other
about their work:
-
One of Mott's grantees is Philadelphia Area Accelerated Manufacturing Education
(PAAME), an organization training machinists and other technical workers.
Discount has funded Philadelphia Interfaith Action (PIA) to address the
mismatch between available jobs in the manufacturing industry and the skills
of un- and under-employed people. PIA will work with PAAME and similar
organizations to begin to resolve this gap.
-
In another example, Discount has funded the efforts of Austin (Texas) Interfaith
to develop a new labor market intermediary that will create access to training
and job opportunities for poor people currently relegated to low-wage,
dead-end jobs. Austin Interfaith's work has been nurtured by Texas Interfaith
Education Fund, and plans for a new labor market intermediary are modeled
on San Antonio's Project: QUEST, both Mott-funded projects.
|