Roundtable 3, Tuesday morning: Funders: Working Together to Grow our Resources (full transcript)

Facilitator: Wendy Newman

Participants:
Thomas A. Gougeon: President, Gates Family Foundation
Lise Aangeenbrug: Executive Director, Great Outdoors Colorado Trust
Peter Streit: Market-based Grants Program Manager, REI
Nicole DeFord: Senior manager of charitable contributions/Vail Resorts Echo
Mary Mitsos: Vice President, Conservation Programs, National Forest Foundation
Matt Hamilton: Sustainability manager, Aspen Skiing Corporation/Executive Director of the Environmental Foundation

WN: Obviously funding is an extremely important part of what we do in stewardship, and this is a critical partnership. We have strained resources—both financial and human. We’ve got increasing responsibilities and a limited pie. How to expand the pie? Is that even possible? Or, how do we more effectively use our limited piece of pie?

I think the way the stewardship community sees it and I think the way the funding community sees it is that we have a symbiotic relationship. When we build capacity in our organizations and collectively, we’re also supporting you. What’s one thing we can do to more effectively collaborate with you?

PS: We’re focusing on that partnership aspect. We’re trying to move away from the donor/charity model. We want to ensure that when we’re funding somebody, we’re bringing our full organization resources to the table. More than just funding and getting logo on newsletter, etc. We also have all these other resources that we’d love for organizations to take advantage of. Use our e-mail, employee base knowledge. We have tremendous potential, particularly with social media, to target audiences.

ND: A lot of what we do for stewardship is through the National Forest Foundation. Something that’s critical for us is making sure that the nonprofit we’re funding is working with the gov’t agency so that we know that what we’re funding is actually happening on the ground and making a difference. The partnership piece is huge for us. We want it to hit every segment. We want it to touch our employees. We want our guests to understand where our dollars are going. We look to the nonprofits to help us with our messaging so that we really reach those people

MM: Be honest as a partner. We all go through organizational struggles. Don’t only give us the rosy picture because we’re funders. Tell us the truth and we’ll help us out as we can.

MH: How do you take the next step to get those employees, volunteers, guests engaged in the political issues? We look at projects, whether volunteer or funding related, through the lens of how the projects lead to a larger political agenda.

TG: Obviously we represent different kinds of funders. For us, (Gates Family Foundation and GOCO) we don’t have a customer or employee base. In some ways, we just have money and money only gets you so far. We don’t have the tools to go out and put this topic on people’s agendas. Funders can be supporters of those things but they can’t drive that activism. We have to look for the organizations that may have the capacity to do that.

LA: What this movement is really missing right now is it’s really difficult for large foundations, or people making decisions at very high levels, to understand definition of problem—the overall needs and what collectively the stewardship community wants to accomplish. There are a lot of great projects at the local , small level that funded now, but it’s difficult to spend more money. Ex: of Land trust community. What was missing was strategic plans on the local level, regional or state level. That has changed over the past 20 years. Prioritizing projects makes the case more compelling to funders. At the end of the day, it may mean there are fewer organizations; there may be more organizations. There’s a huge need to be strategic. Especially looking at state and federal budgets and foundations having declining endowments.

WN: We need to be strategic in our planning so that funders can pinpoint where to give money

LA: (about where GOCO investing money) Youth and families. That is a competitive advantage for stewardship communities. People want to engage. You have a unique niche where you can offer something for people who want to volunteer and engage. People say they care about this issue, you need to be able to communicate what your competitive niche is. GOCO would love to see a statewide gap analysis. It’s difficult for me to see to our board why they should make an increased investment to stewardship without knowing what are the needs, what are the gaps.

PS: I neglected to mention that we’re at a time when communication is really flourishing. A lot of what we see as a need to engage people depends on these forms of communication. I think there is a chronic underinvestment in communication. Example of people “checking in” at REI stores on facebook, $1 donated to nonprofit from REI, and customer directed to org’s facebook page.

WN: We’ve talked about how we can more effectively collaborate as a group. I want to ask you as funders and grant-makers, is there a possibility of a multi-organizational approach? How can you work more effectively together? Each of you have different priorities for funding, calendars, funding sources, but how can you more effectively collaborate?

MH: Look at Save the Colorado Initiative. Give away collective grants. Partners match grants according to missions. Great example of corporate and private foundations looking at Colorado watershed. An effort from New Belgium

MM: I’m happy to say that partnerships already exist among representatives on the table. A little different because we’re also a nonprofit. Raising money and giving it away.

TG: I think one of the things that’s different is that sometimes groups like us find it easier to work around something that’s event-driven. Public lands are protected places and we need to engage—that’s the premise. It’s the reality. You’re trying to create a culture around that belief and act on it. It’s so much harder to make the bigger case when you’re looking at small organizations one-on-one. It needs to be elevated in people’s perceptions that this needs to get done—it’s needs to be a generational thing. People need to see that this is an infrastructural need that we don’t currently have. It needs to be a top priority in that way in order for funders to really rally around it.

WN: Going back to the issue of decreasing state, federal, foundation budgets, etc. Under these constraints, the concept of a really valuable strategic plan for stewardship foundations sounds like it would really benefit us in the long run. But how would we fund that initiative?

LA: The plan needs to be very specific. What organizations, how many people, top priority sites, etc. Not just something that says we need more resources, more partnerships, more collaboration—that’s too vague.

WN: Are there other states that you’ve worked with that have had such an initiative? (A strategic plan for the stewardship world)

MM: Oregon. The lens is a little different because it’s not just through volunteerism. They have a job creation component. Montana is trying hard to do it too.

WN: We agree that something needs to be done and there is urgency. So, from funders’ perspective, what do you think the biggest challenges are?

PS: A couple things: needs to continue to be audience driven. Driven by public and changing nature of the public. Has been brought up many times, but public is changing—recreation activities, how public spends time, etc. Some of the priorities around stewardship are more focused on funding projects that are most accessible to most diverse audience. Not just hard-core trail workers but families who have little experience in the outdoors. Stewardship is a great way to introduce families to the outdoors. A lot of people understand service but not the outdoors and haven’t made that connection

ND: It goes back to making sure that everything we do connects the Vail brand, employee, and guest. We don’t take a political road at all—it’s all about education and forest health. Need to be locally based, in our communities where employees live and work. We want to be recognized for the things were doing—it’s important for us as a company so employees feel good about working there and guests feel good about spending money there. (important for Vail to phrase it as forest health instead of something like “ecological restoration” it’s about environmental sustainability but also community)

TG: This still boils down to what’s the model we’re all working towards? Maybe this group of funders is the consistent sources, but maybe not. Maybe in 30 years it will look very different. Everyone’s doing the best with what they have at the moment but maybe that’s the not the sustainable strategy. We need to work on the strategy—work on the model as well as understanding the need right now.

WN: Is there something that comes to mind when you think outside the box in terms of funding?

ND: At Vail, every guest receives the question of do you want to contribute to forest health? At the chairlift, at the lodge, etc. We facilitate the funding but it doesn’t come from Vail. Look beyond the corporation and foundation to get people to make that small contribution and get them interested in the organization.

MH: It’s not only how can partnerships help our bottom line, but how do we leverage our two brands to leverage more dollars for philanthropy? In conversations with corporate partners, we’re increasingly asking question of what is important to them from stewardship/environment perspective

PS: For alternative funding strategy: how do we bring communications infrastructure to benefit the outdoor community. People and eyeball movement can translate to engagement and funding. There are new ways to turn people into sustained, engaged people, and ways to turn them into financial supporters. Great way to diversify funding with broad base of individual donors. Also, REI has the opportunity to do a lot better by leveraging local locations. We drive through local bases, because each REI location is a hub for local community. Great opportunity for us to leverage that hub of knowledge in a way that connects groups more.

WN: Funding plays an integral role in creating a sustainable effort to build a collaboration/coalition/partnerships. What are other strategies for funding coalitions?

LA: It’s still important to stay focused on diversified funding. It’s still important and part of making the case. There’s still responsibility on part of government—don’t completely go away from government funding. GOCO can’t solve it all; while 55 million is a lot, it’s not enough to fund everything. There needs to be diversified funding. Corporate plays an important role, as does state and local government. No silver bullet idea. Triad of public sector, corporate funding, and private foundations. And we haven’t talked about individuals, which people tend to avoid because it’s the hardest but also a great way to engage more people. I think it needs to come from all these sources. There’s a very important role for each

MM: Funding operations for nonprofits is the hardest money to raise. Funding for coalitions is equally challenging. A strategy is for members of coalition to give up some of their own precious, unrestricted funds to fund coalition.

TG: I think sustaining a coalition over time needs real revenue streams. You need a good story of what you’re doing and why—example of taking it to the ballot—how do you make a case to tons of people that this is important.

WN: I think the beginnings of this, this discussion and forum, is leading to that. Is there a role for funders for providing that leadership role to make that compelling argument and bring it to a level of awareness that we can address this compelling need?

MH: I think there is a responsibility among the funders here to make a financial commitment if that right plan comes along with strategic goals.

MM: Not all of us can fund, but we could fund technical assistance, and models. Could assist but just not through financial resources.

WN: question from audience. In terms of grant applications and reporting requirements, it’s often about miles constructed, number of plants removed, etc. We have been reporting statistics of on the ground accomplishments. But we’ve also been talking about building a culture of stewardship. As funders, do you look for the actual work or the work building the culture? How do we build both into our reporting mechanisms?

PS: We track all the on-the-ground accomplishments. Not just because that’s the most important but because it’s easy to track. Less administrative burden. Also, a good indicator. I think we’re open to the idea of a coalition emerging and saying this is the most meaningful performance indicator that measures engaging the public. I’d love to have that conservation. I think today we somewhat just lack something better.

ND: The customer base wants to involved and cares but everyone’s busy so you have to give them tangible goals and accomplishments. If you can share lots of those little nuggets, people will start to care on a global level

WN: This will require not just leadership but political will. Given the results of the most recent elections, how do you think that factors into our movement?

LA: I don’t think it’s a major challenge. Stewardship is a bipartisan issue. It’s not a lighting rod issue. True of land conservation as well.

MM: I agree with that on both the state and federal level. It’s to our detriment if we don’t believe that and decide to work with only one side

PS: I agree. Ultimately this movement has to be public driven—the individuals out there

TG: Also, budget deficits are bipartisan as well. It doesn’t matter who’s in control of government—we have same fiscal problems.

MH: I don’t disagree, but I do find it challenging. Stewardship to what end? Look at climate change for example. A very political issue. To a certain extent I think it does fall to us to find a common ground on those issues. I think even though stewardship is bipartisan, there are partisan components within. Whether you’re a motorized user or mountain biker, etc.

WN: Open up to audience to answer unanswered questions. What is the feeling when donating to a potentially controversial organization or cause? Is this a worry for corporate donors?

MH: Our environmental funding is done through the foundation. When we’re confronted with these issues, we talk about them in a transparent fashion. We fund issues and confront them head on. We’re comfortable with that, starting the conversation, taking criticism. In the end, it’s about the company.

ND: At Vail, we don’t fund political or adversarial issues. Strictly education and on the ground improvements to forest health.

PS: We’re mindful of the face that we’re a cooperative. And that we have customers on all sides of political spectrum. Around stewardship we can feel confident because everyone involved in the outdoors cares about it.

WN: Any closing comments?

PS: From a national perspective, I have a great sense of where happening in the country. I want to applaud this group—first time as far as I’m aware that this is happening. All the resources are here. The organizations and agencies here are the most able, capable anywhere in the country to move this issue forward. Remarkable and if anyone can answer these questions, it’s this group

TG: There’s a version of these topics that is sort of a manpower problem. There are bigger challenges that volunteer stewards can’t fix (can’t put water back and can’t fix ozone layer). Even basics are in a context that will always be challenging. The world is still changing in bigger ways.

LA: we are leaders that can figure this out and be leaders for the nation