As she prepared to depart Meyer Memorial Trust after more than a decade, Director of Programs Candy Solovjovs sat down last month with Kimberly Wilson, Meyer's Director of Communications, to talk about the evolution of grantmaking.

Kimberly Wilson:

I want to start with what grantmaking was like when you arrived at Meyer in 2007. What can you tell us about the different grant programs then?

Candy Solovjovs:

It was wide-open, general-purpose grantmaking here at Meyer. At that time, our region was Oregon and Southwest Washington. Almost all of our grantmaking happened through our responsive grant program. We had a system of open, rolling deadlines, so we accepted applications at any time and we were making grants almost every month. As things came in, we would process them, decisions would be made, grants would go out and we would get a new batch of proposals to consider. Alongside the larger Responsive Grants program, Meyer also had a Grassroots Grants program to support small budget and emerging organizations. Through both Responsive and Grassroots grants, we were funding some great and important work and organizations addressing community needs. At the same time, it was a constant churn of transactional grantmaking and there was not a clear sense of what issues were Meyer's highest priorities.

When I joined Meyer, the foundation had just dipped its toe into early initiative work. We had just started doing some work with the Chalkboard Project, with the small schools initiative. We were launching our Affordable Housing Initiative and doing very preliminary exploration about the role we might play in improving the health of the Willamette River. These were the first forays for Meyer into deep initiative-based programming. But the bulk of funding and the bulk of staffing capacity were focused on that broad, general-purpose grantmaking.

Meyer was also making program-related investments (PRIs), which were newer to the field of philanthropy at that time. PRIs were primarily made in the form of low-interest loans and most often made in tandem with our general purpose grantmaking. They were mostly made in support of capital projects. For example, we would give a capital grant to support a new community-based health clinic and then provide additional funds as a PRI at the same time.

Overall, when I started we had a general, shared understanding of what we were looking for in grants. We were looking for opportunities where there were strong and stable organizations and where there was evidence of good planning and a high likelihood of success. We wanted evidence of community support, including having some funding already raised and we wanted projects that were in good shape and ready to move forward. We wanted to help organizations that had some kind of track record increase their capacity and organizational infrastructure. But as an organization, Meyer didn't have any specific priorities or areas of focus outside of those initiatives that were happening around the edges.

Kimberly Wilson:

What was the field like when you arrived? What were we focused on and how did that favor or act as a barrier to different kinds of nonprofit organizations?

Candy Solovjovs:

The field of philanthropy, generally, was focused on those strong and stable organizations and "safe bets," I would say. Not many regional funders were providing large capacity-building grants. Advocacy and general operating support grants were few and far between. So from a field perspective, there were a lot of project and capital grants. But the majority of the field really favored organizations that were more established, that had strong networks and fundraising connections, and that had a history within the mainstream community. The other side of the coin was that it was much more challenging for organizations that were emerging, organizations that maybe didn't have those relationships with high net worth individuals or business leaders or were making it on a financial string or were generally just learning their way to secure philanthropic dollars.

Kimberly Wilson:

Regionally, was Meyer more on the progressive end of the field? What made us different from other funders?

Candy Solovjovs:

Yes, I would say, in general, Meyer was on the more progressive end of the regional continuum. Certainly we were doing things that were not unique to us, but it's clear that innovation is truly in the DNA of this organization and reflective of the source of our funds in coming from a founder who was himself an entrepreneur. Has been, still is. We were certainly a leader, and we continue to be a leader in program-related investment work. We were taking on big issues that other funders may have been funding, but we took it to another level and pushed beyond traditional charitable grantmaking and intentionally wanted to try new approaches. Our Affordable Housing Initiative and the Willamette River Initiative are great examples, as is the Million Dollar Idea that came along later and through which Meyer ended up investing significant dollars in leadership development in communities of color.

Those were all very different, innovative, outside of what some of our other peers were doing at the time, or at least we were providing some leadership in that space.

The other thing that I continually hear from the field and that I had experienced myself before coming to Meyer when I was in the nonprofit and public sectors is that Meyer is often open to ideas that other funders may not be — some out-of-the-box ideas, plans that are earlier on in formation, something that hasn't been tried before. Meyer has always been open to new ideas and is often the first foundation coming in with support.

Kimberly Wilson:

Let's talk people. Today, Meyer's program team has about 18 members; when you came to Meyer, how was program staffed?

Candy Solovjovs:

We had about six program staff at that time, all program officers and all generalists. The thing about how we were organized at the time is our program officer staff were primarily folks who had nonprofit executive leadership experience, and we worked in all different fields. Meyer was looking for a certain set of experiences. We had a great team. And it was also limited in terms of diversity of lived experiences and perspectives and the communities from where folks hailed. Any particular program officer at any given time could be working on a request in the environmental field with an arts organization, with a food bank. It was quite a patchwork of matters and each of us was working across the board in all kinds of different areas.

What was great about that was it helped folks learn a lot about different pieces of community. But it didn't offer any of the staff or Meyer to have depth in a particular area or deep relationships with specific fields. As I mentioned before, there was also a rolling application process, which really meant that the focus of the program staff was on the transactional grantmaking process itself and working with individual organizations. We weren't doing much in the way of convening or partnering at a field level to build capacity or to see things from a systems perspective.

Kimberly Wilson:

If you could diagnose what was wrong with grantmaking at Meyer, how would you diagnose it for that timeframe and is it an issue of not being able to be intentional or having priorities?

Candy Solovjovs:

I don't know that I would say that the grantmaking was wrong, because we certainly have supported a lot of really important areas of work and important projects and have contributed to the strength of many Oregon nonprofits. When you travel around the state you can clearly see places where Meyer's investments are visible and have helped communities realize something that's really important to them. That's all really, really good. Meyer can and should be proud of that and its approach of welcoming community priorities.

I think what was challenging about it though was that the organization of Meyer really didn't have clear, stated priorities about what we cared about and how we wanted to invest in communities. We hadn't reflected on who or what we meant by "community." Foundations should have a perspective and find the places where that perspective intersects with community priorities. And understand that in communities throughout our region, there are actually layers of many communities who do not all share the same priorities. At the time, grantmaking was really driven by that constant process of responsive grantmaking and not so much stepping back for a strategic view of what was happening in the state and where unique opportunities were for us to come in as a partner and investor to help shift the tides and support efforts that we deeply cared about.

Kimberly Wilson:

Tell me why that's important, because there are obviously plenty of foundations that still occupy the responsive mode. What makes intentional grantmaking important for a state or community?

Candy Solovjovs:

I believe it's actually the combination that's important. There are sometimes two camps: A foundation is either strategic or responsive. That's not my view. I believe that the magic is in blending strategy and responsiveness. To really understand a community's needs, desires and challenges, keeping those understandings centered in strategy, and creating intentional opportunities to be responsive to community priorities and solutions — that's what supports the partnership and relevancy. But at the same time, you have to own your own perspective and priorities, because you can't be everything to everyone and you can't have agency in change with a mindset that is only about being charitable. It's more challenging if you're looking at investments on an individual organization or individual grant level and making decisions around that, as opposed to looking at the field or looking at the community, or looking at a specific space and saying, "What is our role? Where can we help the field or help a community or help something in a bigger way than just one organization in one particular place at one particular time" and not looking at the bigger context. Strategic philanthropy can often lose its responsiveness and connection to community and its nimbleness and openness to new information because it is so focused on implementing its own rigid strategic framework. From where I sit and having worked in the philanthropic, public and nonprofit sectors, foundations have to be both strategic and responsive to be relevant and effective.

I'm proud of how our Affordable Housing Initiative and Willamette River Initiative have really reflected this blending with strategies that have largely been developed by the field and are nimble and iterative.

Kimberly Wilson:

How did trustee relationships impact what we were doing or our grantmaking? Were they driven by that sense of strategy and impact? What did it look like?

Candy Solovjovs:

Outside of our initiative work, they were very much in the same mode as staff of looking at individual grants, individual projects and focused on that desire to do good in communities in ways that were bubbling up from nonprofits. They talked about impact a lot, but the way that that tended to emerge was around individual grants and looking for very concrete outputs in a very specific window of time during the grant period.

Kimberly Wilson:

So, concrete and discrete?

Candy Solovjovs:

Concrete and discrete, and "What's going to happen while our dollars are there and with our dollars specifically?" What could be counted or measured over the course of a grant.

Kimberly Wilson:

What was frustrating about that? That and the grind that you talked about, or the lack of a North Star touchstone?

Candy Solovjovs:

It's hard to make decisions and it's hard to prioritize if you're only looking at the here and now and you're not able to view something in relation to a broader goal or a broader vision. You can make a decision about whatever is in front of you within the context of the time that you're looking at it, but I think to be able to say, "Here's a picture of what we want to see and how we want to impact it. How does this opportunity support that?" — that's important.

As we have become more reflective and as we are working to understand our role in policy and systems change, the questions are starting to shift. There is an increasing recognition that we need to think more in terms of indicators of progress and positioning for the future. Sometimes the true opportunity is to think about, "What can we do now that might not have a really specific outcome now but is seeding something that will flourish into an outcome over time?"

Kimberly Wilson:

What didn't Meyer fund back then? How did Meyer fund advocacy — did we fund it? And what about general operating support?

Candy Solovjovs:

Primarily, our focus was on projects and capital and capacity building. We rarely funded advocacy; occasionally we did but it tended to be an exception. I think often because it seemed too controversial. We wanted to stay in a space that we felt that all the community, as we were looking at it at that time, could support and that wouldn't be seen as divisive. There was also a tension with advocacy requests and the concrete outcomes that we were looking for, because as we know, it may be a ways down the road before the work leads to visible change.

Clearly we've grown in our comfort there and now understand that supporting communities in their organizing and advocacy work may lead to policy changes that reflect their needs and desires and aspirations, but it might not happen in a 18-month, 2-year, or 3-year grant period.

Similarly, we made general operating support grants from time to time and faced some of the same questions. When you make a general operating support grant, you're investing in an organization and the overall work that they do, but there was a desire to know specifically what was going to happen with these grant dollars. What was the outcome going to be in the grant period? General operating support is a specific way of investing in an organization and trusting partners to use the dollars however they want to meet their mission and we don't even need to know the specifics about their choices. We just want to know how their organizational goals transpired over the course of a year and what they accomplished. There was some discomfort with that earlier on.

Kimberly Wilson:

Give me a sense of how the change began to happen in Meyer's grantmaking. We were funding emergency food programs versus programs that would solve hunger. How did that tolerance to risk show up? How did that get built?

Candy Solovjovs:

Well, change came slowly, for sure. We certainly had a CEO at that time, Doug Stamm, who was really interested in pushing us to do new things in different ways, to challenge ourselves and our thinking, and continuously innovate. Having that energy and those expectations was really key to creating openings for change.

Trustees also started asking questions. This was clearly spotlighted during the recession when we were making some pretty large investments in the emergency food and emergency energy assistance systems because so many people were in need and seeking services. And it raised questions for trustees, "Okay, we're putting all this money out there for emergency food; is anything getting better that's going to change that? Is there a role where we could start looking at how we could help really change the conditions that are feeding into that need for emergency services?" That's how our food system work came to be. In that moment, trustees said, "Okay, staff, what might that look like?" Two staff in particular at the time, Kim Thomas and Sally Yee, took the lead in helping to explore how Meyer could support communities, not only with grant dollars but also convening and capacity building support around developing local food systems that could address local food issues in a different way.

Then we did some other things over time to start cultivating some of the changes you've seen. We started bringing in folks from outside Oregon, who were working in different ways, to talk to us about what they were doing, why they were doing it, and how they were addressing some of the questions or challenges that came up for the folks at Meyer. We brought in wonderful people from the Alliance for Justice on a couple of different occasions to talk to us about supporting policy and advocacy grants and using our voice. There's a lot of fear about that, particularly in the private foundation world around, "Can we do this? Can nonprofits lobby? Can foundations support it?"

Understanding that and unraveling that was really helpful and really important. We also brought in colleagues from Grantmakers for Effective Organizations to talk with our trustees, then some other foundations and some of our local nonprofit partners here, just to help us think differently and try to provide some perspective around places that we were feeling stuck.

And we were beginning to reflect more on issues of equity and community investment, and who we were and were not funding. And it raised even more questions for us.

Kimberly Wilson:

The redesign. I feel like it began with the words "flourishing and equitable." Tell me what the redesign was about? Was it because of language change in Meyer's mission statement?

Candy Solovjovs:

I think a lot of the things we've been talking about were all converging. When we did change the language in our mission statement and modified it to really focus on a flourishing and equitable Oregon, it started to give some shape to mission that we hadn't had before. But what it also brought up for me in terms of our grantmaking work and the program team was, "Okay, so we modified our mission and started to provide some focus to our priorities and vision. How does our grantmaking relate to that? Where are we making grants that really are supporting and advancing that work? Where might we be making some investments that we're not clear where that connection is? And where does it feel like there is actually a rub with what we want to see?" I think wanting to at least step back and have some conversation together around, "What's the line here and how do we make sure what we're doing is advancing this mission?" The conversation started with grantmaking, but I think it was applicable organizationally. "How is this advancing our mission under this new frame?"

It was also an opportunity to step back to reflect and plan. We asked ourselves, "What is it that we really like about the way that we work and what we're doing? What is it that we're doing because it's the way that we've always done it? Can we pause to think about that, particularly in relation to this mission change?" So we began to start defining, "What are the areas that there's the most energy and passion about and that we think are the most important levers for change if we really are to achieve flourishing and equitable communities?" That's housing, education, the environment and policies and leadership that are reflective of the totality of communities here in Oregon. Those things surfaced through that reflection process. They were things we were already investing in, but we hadn't named them as priorities or brought any focus to them. And it started to help us more clearly see areas where we were funding that were not among those highest priorities.

Then we wanted to also be able to think about the places where we were working in different ways with nonprofits and public sector agencies and funder partners, and through those conversations what began to emerge was that we were seeing the most change and progress and deeper relationships around the edges of the work we were doing in our initiatives and in some of our more focused funding programs. It wasn't in the responsive programs, which is where most of our capacity and funding was going. That was kind of a big "Aha", moment for folks saying, "What was different about how we're working in those areas? Organizationally, from a structural standpoint, what would we need to change to be able to do more of that kind of work?"

Kimberly Wilson:

When you arrived, Meyer was still making grants in Oregon and Southwest Washington. How did redefining the region come about? Did it play a role in the redesign? Was there tension in how we went about changing our grantmaking community?

Candy Solovjovs:

We had, for many years, included Southwest Washington within our region because of its connection to the Portland area. For a while, it had been a broader swath than Southwest Washington, then at one point had narrowed specifically to Clark County. But part of the reflection in the redesign process was around the opportunity to deepen engagement in policy and advocacy and systems change work. There was the realization that so much of that happens on the state and local level. Things like education policy, affordable housing policy, environmental policy; it's an entirely different state system with entirely different players in Washington that are tied to the rest of Washington state. If we were going to focus and deepen our work, then it made sense to really focus on the core areas that we were working in.

We also knew that our investments in Southwest Washington had been through our responsive grantmaking and we were supporting different organizations in different years. There wasn't really a consistent theme or continuity in those investments. This was important because one of the things we were really concerned about was making sure changes at Meyer did not unintentionally destabilize the nonprofits we were funding. So we took the time to analyze that, and we didn't see that pattern in the way that we were funding in Clark County.

At the same time, though, we didn't want to have an abrupt cut-off funding there. So we entered into a supportive partnership with the Community Foundation of Southwest Washington to provide funding that would support grantmaking over multiple years and capacity building support to provide a gradual ramp down of our philanthropic support in that area.

Kimberly Wilson:

Meyer started three new initiatives around the time you arrived: Affordable Housing Initiative, Chalkboard Project and Willamette River Initiative. As you described earlier, they were sort of fringe to the responsive grantmaking that Meyer was doing, but as they proved successful and proved to have impact, they came into the core of the foundation work. Tell me a little bit more about the strategic planning that made that happen.

Candy Solovjovs:

It was more about looking at the ways we were working in those initiatives and how we build that out in the core of the foundation. You can see that now in the ways that portfolios are convening grantees and partners. They are working with partners in ways that are much more visible and inherent in the structure of their strategy than we were doing before at any broad scale. It's taking the lessons that we learned and the approaches that were being effective and the partnerships that were happening and bumping those up and infusing them throughout all of our programmatic structure.

Kimberly Wilson:

This year is bringing closure to several things from that earlier era, including an end to the final legacy payments for responsive grantmaking, as well as the transition of the Willamette River Initiative, which was started in 2008. There was the large budget arts organizations funding, which began in 2007, and the Affordable Housing Initiative, which started around 2007 or 2008. Now that those specific initiatives are ramping down, how will our commitment to the arts, the Willamette River and affordable housing continue to show up going forward?

Candy Solovjovs:

I expect there will be a place for all of them going forward within our portfolios. We are in the process of ramping down the support in the form that we have been providing to the large budget arts organizations in the metro area for some time. They still will be eligible to apply under our portfolios and funding opportunities. Going forward, they will just be part of the process that is open to every other arts organization in the state to consider applying for.

Our Willamette River Initiative is in the process of defining its next evolution of being a community-led network, which is really exciting. Meyer will continue to be a part of that. We are actively providing support and coordination of that planning, and as part of that transition, our trustees have made an additional four years of funding commitment. Meyer will continue to be a partner as that work evolves, but it will look different, won't be housed here and will provide a launching platform for broader community leadership.

Then our Affordable Housing Initiative is being integrated into the bones of our housing opportunities portfolio. We've been bringing these two pieces together and into one team under the redesign. Our AHI staff and many of the ways they have been working will continue to live on; it's just going to be better integrated with our overarching housing framework through a shared strategy.

Kimberly Wilson:

Beyond that integration, what would you expect to see or hope to see to build on places of intersection and other strategies of our new portfolios?

Candy Solovjovs:

I'm excited to see what's next. We've been developing these four portfolio areas; they'll continue to iterate and refine their strategies and to do more in spaces that go beyond grantmaking. More convening, more research, more strategic communications. I also think that as the teams have formed and the learnings that have come to date and the experiences that we've had, there will be a lot of opportunity to start exploring where issues intersect. We already do some cross portfolio work, but the places they come together — be it at a field level or at the community level — are the areas that are ripe for our next step. There may be some really interesting opportunities to take a more place-based lens to explore where they come together in community.

I also anticipate that we will start more robustly building out places to use other kinds of investments like PRIs. We've intentionally slowed this down over the last couple of years as we've reoriented. We've continued to do make PRIs, but I think we're now ready to do more and to explore opportunities to leverage mission-related investments, as well.

My hope would be that there would be continued energy put into developing partnerships, both internally, to be able to have some synergy between the grantmaking and program work that we're doing in other parts of the Meyer business to come in and support the organizational goals, and also with our partners externally as well.

Kimberly Wilson:

I'm curious about program related investments. Meyer was a groundbreaker in the PRI world. How did PRIs initially align with our interests and how are we using them today?

Candy Solovjovs:

I think PRIs are a great way to provide a different kind of investment, and certainly larger investments, in ways that can redeploy dollars to keep them in circulation over time.

When I first started and over the first several years that I was here, we really built up our PRI programming. But what became clear was that, similar to the grantmaking, we were not necessarily investing in areas that might be the highest priority, particularly as we've modified our mission. As we went into the redesign, it was important to make sure that we were aligning PRIs to mission, not as a pipeline aspiration or an aspiration to get a certain number of dollars out the door. We need to ask ourselves how we can use PRIs as a strategic tool within our areas of priority and in ways that really make sense in the context of our mission. We need to understand what the field needs and what role can a PRI play in helping to address that need.

Over the last couple of years, the work that we have done is to reorient some of those existing PRIs to our new portfolios and find the ones that are doing great work, that are really advancing what we want to do, and to extend them and add dollars to them. I think that going forward there will be new ways to continue to build that out.

We've also been focusing more on how intermediaries can partner with us. One of the things that we learned in our PRI work is that it takes a lot of staff capacity. We are not bankers, and foundations can't move as quickly as financial institutions. We know our intermediary partners can often leverage other dollars and a depth of technical assistance that we can't do here at Meyer. Now we are supporting organizations like the Network for Oregon Affordable Housing, Community Housing Fund and Craft3 with PRIs so that they can make loans to nonprofits. This is an effective way that we can partner with someone else who can act more nimbly, who can bring in other resources and help put together a package for organizations in ways we can't.

I would anticipate that we'll continue to build our PRI work back up but now more focused with our mission. We've also done a little bit of work the last few years around credit and loan guarantees that are different ways to apply that tool. I think you'll see more of this from Meyer.

Kimberly Wilson:

Let's talk about our relationship with the field today. I know we have connections we didn't have when you first arrived. Tell me about the tension behind some of that and what those relationships look like today.

Candy Solovjovs:

I think that Meyer has had relationships in some way with different communities and different organizations, really since I started. But I think that they have deepened. What I've seen over the last couple of years is we've really worked to bring in staff who have different networks and different connections and different experiences. We have more staff who are able to spend more time on relationship building and have been able to work with different communities to help develop really community-driven, community-led initiatives.

We've built on the capital that we've had for some time, but we've been able to shift that to start to deepen those relationships in new ways. And I would say we are still early on in developing these relationships. There are a lot of opportunities there as well, including in rural Oregon.

Kimberly Wilson:

The assets of the foundation have doubled since you've arrived and so have our payouts. How have you contributed to change through that shift? Are there examples, maybe in our portfolios, that reflect what that greater institutional financial heft and the ability to pay out more, what does that look like?

Candy Solovjovs:

One of the places that we can look to and say that we've really made some investments in change is through our affordable housing work. We have dedicated a lot of resources that have contributed to nonprofits being able to preserve affordable housing that would have been lost, to increase the number of units of affordable housing, and to really invest in some policy and systems change work that have supported and gave organizations capacity to be able to make policy changes or drive policy changes. Even though we still have such a significant need for affordable housing, that need would be even bigger had Meyer not made the investments that its made.

This is just one example. You can see the impact in the environmental field, in leadership development and community organizing among communities of color and other marginalized populations, in a wide range of policy and systems change and in the increased capacity of so many Oregon nonprofits. Our dollars have not been the only piece but have certainly been an important piece of advancements in many, many areas.

Kimberly Wilson:

Obviously there's a limit to what we can do regardless of what our assets are, or what our payout is, but we're doing more with our payout today. We're able to do more with our payout today regardless of how much that payout is because we're being more intentional.

Candy Solovjovs:

Yes, we're definitely leveraging it in different ways. One of the things that we've been really working on is how can we build into our funding strategy ways to support the field with technical assistance. There are times when that's really important with capacity building, with collaborations — that's an area we haven't talked about but that is something that's really different in the way that we're funding now. We're recognizing the power in coalitions and collaborative work and changing our funding structure to support and incentivize that. I think that all of those things give you, regardless of dollar amount, the way that we're using it is different as well.

Kimberly Wilson:

Let's talk specifically about equity. Equity is now infused in what we do, how we do the work we're doing, and also the work that we're trying to support — to better understand and better apply equity to themselves and to their work. Tell me a little bit about that, and also at this stage a couple of years into our equity transformation, how do you build up organizations that are leading in the work already while also building capacity in newer organizations or organizations that are newer to us?

Candy Solovjovs:

Those are the two places that we are really looking at how Meyer can support and bring about change. As we have restructured our funding opportunities, we're looking very specifically through an equity lens. We're asking organizations to speak to that in a variety of ways, from who they're serving, who is on their board, who is on their staff, to how are they engaging community in defining and leading work.

There's a lot of different ways that we're bringing that lens to the funding process. It certainly is allowing us to identify those organizations that are leading in equity and to provide capacity, operating support, or other kinds of support that are important for wherever they are organizationally right now. We are helping build their assets and capacity as well.

At the same time, we are also committed to supporting organizations that are maybe earlier in their equity work but are committed to advancing and recognize the importance of equity. If you look at our investments over the last couple of years, we've been providing a number of grants to support equity and inclusion within organizations: training for boards, for staff, assistance with policy review, with policy development and staffing assistance. We are supporting capacity builder organizations in Oregon and helping to develop their capacity to provide diversity, equity and inclusion training and capacity building support to others. We're providing leadership development support as well, really focused on equity and inclusion.

Through our portfolios, we're also exploring ways that we can support cohorts of grantees and their staff and board, not only individual organizations but also from a field perspective in advancing DEI. We are working with cohorts of housing groups in different areas of the state that are going through diversity and equity inclusion workshops together. We'll continue that work and will be providing grant support to help those individual organizations move forward in whatever their next steps are.

We are doing similar work through our Willamette River Initiative and the healthy environment portfolio. Overall, we are working in a variety of ways to both invest in organizations that are leading and help to shift the field as well.

Kimberly Wilson:

This is a hard topic: organizations that don't see themselves tracking with what we're trying to achieve or how we're trying to achieve it. We're asking organizations to step out of the circles that they know to take a broader look at the needs of their community. What does that look like today?

Candy Solovjovs:

There is a different equity lens that we're bringing and we are focusing in specific portfolio areas. It does shift what kinds of applications and proposals end up being most competitive in our process. I don't know of any organization that I would just say categorically, "You no longer fit with Meyer." Because we're not focused on types of organizations or specific organizations. We're focused on the goals and outcomes that we want to see, and there's a variety of ways and a variety of types of organizations that can fit into that.

What we're asking organizations for and what we're looking for in partners are those that really do step back and take a look at who is in their community and if they are serving everyone in their community. If they're not, how can they think about doing that. We want to provide support to help organizations and communities to move forward in that. It may be in the form of funding for training or specific grants to advance something internally or externally that will support that.

But some organizations might not be ready for that and maybe it's some technical assistance or some resources or some conversations that can help them with that.

That said, if organizations don't see themselves fitting in or matching with us or don't see equity and inclusion as relevant to their work, then they probably don't share that same perspective or see that same orientation toward their community. And they are not a good fit for funding.

Kimberly Wilson:

Tell me a little bit about governance at Meyer today. Only two of the trustees who are currently sitting on Meyer's board were in place when the redesign took place. How is that relevant and what has changed?

Candy Solovjovs:

Well, it's very relevant. Three of the five trustees who were part of that initial redesign just a few years ago are no longer here and those changes were not anticipated then. It's had a lot of impact, and I think at this stage, a few years in, it also provides a great opportunity for the next iteration as Meyer takes what it has learned over the past few years and moves forward.

Because really, the trustees at the time were the ones who were driving the changes. I can't imagine people who could bring more heart and intellect and focus to that work. They were truly wonderful. Now, Meyer has some really wonderful new folks who are bringing new and different perspectives. They can ask questions in different ways. I am just really thrilled that we have two trustees now who are themselves nonprofit leaders and can bring that direct experience and have familiarity with advocacy and have familiarity with the issues, diversity, equity, inclusion and communities that are really at the heart of what the redesign was about. There is just so much opportunity there.

In terms of what's changed, we've been able to shift the structure of how trustees and staff engage in way that we didn't do here at Meyer before the redesign. We have created new committee structures and different kinds of relationships that provide trustees a great entry into shaping each of those portfolio areas and working in tandem with staff and in bringing their very relevant expertise and experience to planning and decisions.

A lot has certainly changed over the last few years at the governance level, but I think that there's a lot of great opportunity going forward and some really great people to help lead the organization.

Kimberly Wilson:

I'm going to turn this over to you. There's some other topics that I think you wanted to talk around. The staffing changes that were necessary to build the teams and build and distribute the leadership. Can you talk about this, going back?

Candy Solovjovs:

Yes, when you interact with our teams, there's definitely experience, expertise and depth in fields that was not here when I started. There's a lot of different ways for folks to be able to take on leadership roles, different ways to partner, different ways to do their work that really wasn't possible under the staffing structure that we previously had, which was, again, really focused specifically on that responsive grantmaking system.

Kimberly Wilson:

Our new president and CEO, Michelle J. DePass, recently said something that kind of speaks to what you're saying about the staffing and how it's changed. She said, "I think this is a sector that needs to do more in terms of not only serving community but being a part of community." Our programming staff now has focused expertise. Does that serve the idea?

Candy Solovjovs:

Yes, you can see that showing up in different ways. If we take housing as an example of our work, then yes, you've got people working within that portfolio who are living in very different communities in the metro area, have come from very different areas of the state — including rural Oregon communities — and have had a variety of housing experiences. That brings a certain lived experience into that work, and they're also highly engaged with the field in learning. They are sitting at tables around issues and policy and really experiencing and hearing and being part of those conversations at a field-based level in a way that just didn't happen previously.

Kimberly Wilson:

Thank you so much, Candy. You've guided us down this path.

Candy Solovjovs:

Thank you. It's been an honor to work with so many fabulous people over the course of my 11 years here. I have definitely played a role in getting us to where we are, but it's a collective vision. It has truly been a remarkable experience!

Evolution. Growth. Reflection. Change. These themes have been front and center at Meyer over the past several years.

I am so grateful, as Meyer's director of programs, to have been a part of creating the Meyer we have become. I have also appreciated the opportunity to work in collaboration with such an amazing group of leaders across our board, staff and partners.

It is truly a gift to work in an organization with values that resonate so deeply with my own and, as a place-based foundation, to help to strengthen communities that I am part of and love.

A time for reflection

I'm approaching my 11^th year at Meyer. As many of you know, I have been reflecting on what's next for me for my own personal evolution and growth.

Earlier this spring, I shared with our board, staff and a few close partners my intention to transition from my role at Meyer later this year to explore new ways of working with philanthropy and nonprofits. I feel the call to find new opportunities where I can contribute and find joy.

In sharing my plans, I was also clear in my commitment to a thoughtful and measured transition to support Meyer and our partners through Meyer's transition in CEOs and to provide stability and continuity through our 2018 funding opportunities.

With our new CEO, Michelle J. DePass, now in place and our 2018 funding opportunities well underway, I want to share my news more broadly with all of you.

Transition timing

So what happens next? I will continue as the director of programs at Meyer into early August and will then transition to a part-time consulting role with Meyer into the fall.

We anticipate that recruitment for my replacement will begin later this summer, with the goal of bringing the new director of programs onboard in October. We'll be keeping you well informed of the hiring process and timing along the way, so be sure to sign up for our newsletter.

During this transition, Meyer will remain committed to its current funding plans, and I am excited to watch as it continues in its evolution.

Celebrating the evolution of Meyer's programs

People have asked me what I am particularly proud of in my tenure at Meyer as director of programs. That's a big question! But in short:

• The ways in which we continuously listen to, partner with and learn from nonprofits in our community. From the community-driven refresh of our Affordable Housing Initiative to the nonprofit surveys, expert interviews and community listening sessions that helped to create our new portfolios to regularly improving our work in response to your feedback – being engaged with and responsive to community is now deep in Meyer's bones.

• Centering equity in our programs. We have strategically restructured our funding priorities and the way we work to center equity and marginalized people and communities. This work has fundamentally changed our lens, decision-making, funding, relationships with the field and each and every one of us, personally.

• Prioritizing policy advocacy and systems change. We've shifted who and how we fund to support communities in creating new solutions, changing harmful policies and protecting policies that support equity. It's challenged us and our partners to take a hard look at the systemic drivers that maintain the inequities at the core of the problems we wish to solve.
• Partnering with our peer funders to better support the field and strengthen community. You've seen many examples in the past few years such as our engagement in the Oregon Immigrant and Refugee Funders Collaborative. We are supporting capacity of the Pride Foundation and Women's Foundation of Oregon for their respective work to raise the voices of the LGBTQ community and marginalized women. We are partners with Philanthropy Northwest in the launch of the Momentum Fellowship program. And we are a cornerstone investor in the Oregon Impact Fund of The Oregon Community Foundation.

  
  These are just a few of the ways we are partnering with our amazing philanthropic colleagues in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest.

• Innovating to be more nimble, proactive and responsive. You've seen it in the new ways we have provided rapid funding in the face of attacks on civil liberties; responded to community crises; supported organizations through leadership changes, organizational challenges and mergers; and convened around important and timely issues.
• Restructuring our program team to distribute leadership. In forming our new portfolio teams, we intentionally created roles and spaces that distribute leadership in new ways and provide opportunities for colleagues to more fully contribute their diversity of experiences, talents and aspirations – our team is truly a special and talented group of people!

Those are some of the strategic advancements we have made together during my time at Meyer. I am honored to have journeyed alongside this amazing team of staff members, trustees and community partners and humbled to have played a key role in putting strong, strategic scaffolding in place that will support continuity of Meyer's mission and vision of equity well into the future.

Our accomplishments provide an extraordinary platform for the next director of programs to partner with Meyer's executive team to influence future programmatic work and collaborate with Oregon communities to push Meyer's impact even further.

You have been and will no doubt continue to be a big part of charting Meyer's path and our collective success.

Gratitude

It has truly been an honor, a privilege and humbling to work with so many people every day who are deeply committed to the communities and places that make our Oregon home. Thank you again for your support and partnership over the past decade. It has been inspiring and so personally meaningful to me. I have learned so much. Now, I am excited about what's next on my professional path, and I look forward to continuing our relationships and work together in new ways.

Let's stay connected.

With gratitude,

– Candy

---

Candy Solovjovs has served Meyer Memorial Trust since November 28, 2007. She will step down as director of programs on August 3, 2018, after leading Meyer's programs for 11 years. If you'd like to stay connected with Candy, email candy [at] mmt.org (candy[at]mmt[dot]org) or follow her on Twitter and LinkedIn.

In the gymnasium at Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization (IRCO), two grantseekers greet and shake hands during a 2018 funding information session for Meyer’s Annual Funding Opportunity.

In March, I joined the nine other Momentum Fellows of Philanthropy Northwest for a dynamic two-and-a-half-day retreat. This was our first time reuniting since we met six months ago when we began the Momentum Fellowship. The fellowship has placed us at different foundations across the Pacific Northwest and has offered us programming and network opportunities to jumpstart our careers in philanthropy.

Who are we?

During our retreat, we shared an immediate excitement and bonded as we rode the ferry on a typical gray and rainy Seattle day to Bainbridge Island. It just so happens that all the Cohort II fellows are women – an important connecting factor. We are a culturally and racially diverse cohort of Native Alaskan/Iñupiaq, African American, Iranian, Latina, Hawaiian-raised, biracial and Asian American women – and came to philanthropy in the Northwest through different paths. One common thread is that we are keenly aware of the inequalities and intersections among race, gender and class – and are starting to navigate this highly privileged and uncommon place of power and resources. While working in philanthropy, many of us continue making impact in the communities we’ve worked closely with in the past.

What did we learn?

Besides bonding time and learning leadership skills, I didn’t know what to expect from the retreat. Our coordinator, Maya Thornell-Sandifor, put aside our looming doubts and immersed us in a rich and balanced training with activities led by other thoughtful, highly skilled women (thank you Maya, Mares, Michelle, Jan and Sindhu!). We explored the themes of adaptive leadership, reflective practices, understanding roles and self-care.

Things came together on this beautiful, magical island. It was then when I actualized the reason for pursuing this fellowship. I had left a stable job at a philanthropic institution, moved across the country to an unfamiliar city. My adaptive challenge was both physical/environmental and professional. This fellowship was the opportunity I was yearning for: to take a step back and reflect on my role in philanthropy, engage in deeper intentional learning and move forward better informed on how to best share my skills and perspectives. I am now equipped with more tools and support than ever before.  

Supporting people of color in philanthropy

Having worked in philanthropy for several years, I’ve had my share of challenges around equity as a person of color. I have personally experienced and witnessed colleagues of color lacking the support needed and having requests for additional resources denied – and ultimately leaving jobs due to subtle racism. Meanwhile, white counterparts seem to easily receive the institutional support, trust, acknowledgment and encouragement needed to succeed and grow. I also noticed that as an Asian American female, I am perceived by some colleagues as a non-racial person unaffected by racism in the workplace.

How do we set up systems for people of color to get continuous support and stability? How do we go beyond simply focusing on diversifying the faces in philanthropy to creating a place where we thrive and see greater leadership in philanthropy? Communities of color are often credited with being resilient in the face of incredible hardship, but we must shift our efforts to address how and where we drop off and get destabilized in the sector and in society. How do we institutionalize and implement equity with good practices and clear policies alongside our fluid culture?

Another adaptive challenge is the need to have deeper dialogues on class and economic inequality in the funding world – especially among ourselves as funders – and chip away at our cultural discomfort with this subject. Can we lead such talks, including what wealth means for people of color in philanthropy? Economic disparity, power structures and access are not marginal issues we can choose to tackle but truly a central part of our work as funders pursuing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

The value of professional support

As I explore how we can use data to push for greater equity in philanthropy during my fellowship, one of the tools I have found incredibly valuable for my development has been the professional coaching included in our fellowship. While I have been lucky to have long-time mentors help me with career and life choices, having a coach partner who holds me accountable and encourages me has been another layer of support and sustenance (thank you Holly!).

As an immigrant (and now an ex-New Yorker), I have always known the necessity in adapting physically and culturally to new environments. With a greater appreciation and understanding of adaptive challenges and reflective practices, I look forward to this journey along with my Momentum sisters. I will continue to engage in self-care, whether they be meditative walks on suspension bridges or wrapping myself up in one big cinnamon roll hug.

— Mijounga Chang, Momentum Fellow in Data

 

Editor’s note: The Momentum Fellowship, coordinated by Philanthropy Northwest, aims to prepare professionals from underrepresented communities, particularly communities of color, for successful careers in the philanthropic sector. The Momentum Fellowship is part of Philanthropy Northwest’s commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Photo credit: Jenny Miller, Momentum Fellow at the Rasmuson Foundation

As I approach my final days as Meyer's CEO, I have been reflecting on my tenure at Oregon's second-largest private foundation. I have been considering the work we accomplished together, the staff and trustees I've had the privilege to work alongside, the community and philanthropic partners whose vital work I have seen up close and the lessons I've learned. It's true: For 16 years I have had, as The Oregonian noted in 2002, "the best job in Oregon."

Closing out my final week at Meyer, three ideas keep surfacing in my thoughts: how much we have changed beyond our traditional roots; what I have learned as a leader through the successes, challenges and failures; and what gives me hope looking forward.

Moving beyond eleemosynary

There was a time when philanthropy centered on a concept on which a spelling bee championship might hang: eleemosynary. Meaning relating to or supported by charity, eleemosynary was at the root of the foundation I joined in 2002. Although there was no specific overarching mission statement or focused grantmaking program at the time, the common objective behind Meyer's work was "to contribute to the betterment of the place we call home."

When I first arrived, our foundation remained a bit of an enigma. When a grantee asked us, "Why did you give us a grant?" we would answer: "You asked. You made it through our rigorous due diligence process. You're trying to do something good." Without shareholders, we had little accountability and our commitment to transparency was just emerging. We were of the breed of philanthropy that was generally slow to change, operating from a position of power and privilege.

John Emrick, a longtime trustee who retired last year, was fond of saying early in my tenure that Meyer should strive to be a national model of a regional foundation. I think he was onto something. It inspired us to keep pushing beyond, to go deeper. The changes were incremental at first, but we knew we were on the right track.

Fast forward for a sec: It's so interesting to me that Meyer is better known nationally than in Oregon for our leadership and innovation around program-related investments (PRIs), launching the More for Mission campaign, our impact investing in and co-founding Mission Investors Exchange and for making our long-term investment focus around the Willamette River and affordable housing. These have been held up as national models. So have our efforts to act transparently: We were the first foundation to meet all The Foundation Center's "Glass Pockets" criteria for online transparency and accountability. And through our work with the D5 Coalition, we have prodded philanthropy to reflect the diverse country we share.

I am extremely proud of what we have accomplished at Meyer. Guided by the risk-taking spirit of our entrepreneurial founder, Fred Meyer, we have explored innovations that helped us do more than merely pay out 5 percent of our assets through grantmaking each year. We tore down the firewall between investments and program to bring the two functions into sync, to ensure that our investment values are in line with our overarching programmatic goals. We brought greater diversity and inclusion to our staff, governance, leadership and decision-making. And when we weathered two major recessions, in 2004 and 2008, we increased funding even as our corpus dropped significantly, to organizations that help our communities flourish.

The thinking at Meyer about our role in the state has shifted quite a bit since 2002. The change has truly been driven from within.

A hallmark of our work is the notion of "disruption." In technology, disruption is viewed as essential to success, problem-solving and breakthroughs. Often, it suggests seismic or systemic change. We have brought the idea to our work in a way that has upended many of our traditional notions of philanthropy. Disruption also explains why this equity work can be such a struggle at times — people tend to prefer certainty.

Our disruption began with a new mission statement: "Working toward a flourishing and equitable Oregon." It led us to look closely at the factors that force communities into the oppressive circumstances that charity aims to alleviate. Foundational charity takes the position that misfortune is the reason some people have and others do not. It presumes that having and not having occupy a space without a history of decisions, systems and institutions that create haves and have-nots.

Charity, or generosity, might feel good, but it doesn't dismantle the root causes that bring about oppression and resulting disparities. the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said it better: "Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary."

Charity is no longer the framework that grounds Meyer. That's not the organization I'll be handing off to our incoming president and CEO, Michelle J. DePass.

Now when we talk about education in Oregon, we talk about focusing on strategies for closing the achievement gaps, the graduation gaps and the opportunity gaps that disproportionately affect underserved students of color, English Language Learners (ELL), LGBTQ2+ students, students living in poverty, students with disabilities, first-generation post-secondary students and students in foster care.

When we talk about building community in Oregon, we talk about making transformational change though an honest reckoning with the historical and current causes of disparity — and our shared responsibility to dismantle those obstacles for Oregonians, including communities of color, indigenous people and tribes, immigrants and refugees, people living in poverty, LGBTQ2+ communities, people with disabilities, the elderly, women and girls, and crime and abuse survivors.

When we talk about what it means to have a healthy environment in Oregon, we talk about the harm environmental problems wreck on communities already affected by bias and oppression, communities of color and low-wage earners who already experience less access to the benefits of nature and environmental protection.

And when we talk about housing in Oregon, we begin by acknowledging that a long history of discrimination and policies that favored white Oregonians continue to create barriers to safe, affordable housing for African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and immigrants and refugees. And we recognize the particular challenges people face around affordable housing in rural parts of the state.

In so many ways, we have moved beyond tradition. Although the journey has not been easy, it's the only route I can imagine us taking, even though there have been times the route felt like a sheer vertical wall no one could scale.

Equity is hard/heart work

When I look back at news clippings about Meyer from the past few years, the topics of equity and inclusion have garnered the most attention. Meyer gets credit for taking bold steps to learn about equity and being intentional in its efforts to dismantle inequities. I have gotten more than my share of attention for being an older cisgender white man and ally making a personal journey into the study of equity. What you don't see in those clippings are my mistakes and what I've learned from the stumbles.

Trust me: It is possible, even when considering the most gratifying achievements, to recall the missteps that preceded, parallelled or followed the successes. There have been moments when I was nearly undone by doubt — when I worried we were pushing too hard for change or not hard enough, when I led the organization down an uncharted or rocky path where the horizon was nowhere in sight.

Six years ago, our staff began thinking deliberately about equity. It started modestly, as a search into what it meant to be a foundation with a mission to make this a "flourishing and equitable" place. About a year later, we attempted a three-day, all-staff racial equity training. It went so wrong that we shut it down early. The experience broke something open at Meyer: deep, historical pains, bewilderment and even anger. I was at a loss as to how to respond to the pain being experienced by our staff, each of whom was embarking on their own individual equity journey. My lack of familiarity with the work held me down; I did not know how to intercede.

We've come many miles since that initial training, but our organization continues to wrestle with its aftermath.

Before that weekend, Meyer's trustees had seen me as an effective, steady leader for more than a decade. But a few weeks afterward, the toll of our first steps toward equity was palpable inside Meyer. We had been sundered by the experience.

I contemplated stepping down and shared these feelings with the trustees. I was an experienced, proven leader and change agent but a novice when it came to issues of race and inclusion. I wasn't sure I could guide our organization forward. Then I read an article by George Penick, founding president of the Foundation for the Mid South, who wrote about the need for leaders like myself to make room for women and people of color in leadership roles. Right then, I was ready to do just that.

The Meyer trustees asked me to stay. I am grateful, especially to the late trustee Orcilia Zuñiga Forbes, who reminded me that leaving could have unintended consequences. The board might instead opt for a different, more conservative path and not continue to delve into the difficult and highly emotional work that needed to be done. The pain that inequity gives voice to is real and a burden some of us have had the privilege of not even being aware of. If I wanted to change that dynamic, if I wanted to help foster a community engaged in important work, I needed to stick around.

Here's the thing: People think a foundation president runs the organization and in many ways, you do. It's your name at the bottom of everyone's checks; it's your reputation on the line when something major goes off the rails. But equity can turn hierarchy on its head. Within an organization driven to act on issues of equity, every person has a stake, every employee is a co-leader in the work. A commitment to equity can't be forced or faked. It is a delicate balance, thrown easily into disarray.

That said, it is not difficult to feel like you are making mistakes. If I could go back in time, I would tell myself that although we call it an equity journey, it functions more like a slow unending race. Equity doesn't follow a single, straight path — you must take care to pull over for pit stops. To get it right, sometimes you need to pause and reflect, or pause and heal, or pause and reconnect, or pause and reposition the route. Those pit stops are a vital part of the journey.

Equity is not so much an end goal as it is a process, one that demands time, introspection and challenging conversations. I may have encouraged us to spend more time on honest, emotional conversation about what was right or wrong in the organization — to help us practice what we had begun to preach — and less time on training sessions. The deep impromptu staff meetings we organized following the divisive 2016 election and the subsequent rise of hate speech and hate crimes across the country gave us the time and space needed to connect and build trust. I thought it was important for us to document our journey, but I've come to realize now that healing and reconciliatory conversations are as much a part of advancing the work as keeping track of it. At the root of racism and repression is a lack of understanding and empathy. It takes a long time to gain trust and have those conversations. A lot of outside and internal pressures can keep those conversations at bay. Such discussions might have helped us carry out our program redesign in a way that didn't cause further pain to many longtime staffers. I regret that.

It surely would have been easier to remain the CEO of a traditional foundation that reflected and focused on dominant culture. Equity work comes with strain. It can push you well beyond your comfort zone, which comes at a personal cost. And it is daunting.

I am blown away by the strength and dedication of Meyer's staff; they have been my inspiration and guiding light. They have never turned away from this vitally important work. Each one owns a piece of it, and when they show up, when they help lead the effort, we move further along the journey. They have shown a willingness to lean into discomfort and uncertainty that inspires me. I've learned something profound about growth: Persisting, knowing that your strengths can also be your challenges, staying open to possibilities, using humor, compassion, kindness and love — all of these have propelled us forward. If ever we waste that opportunity, it will be a huge loss.

Without reservation, I know that I am a better, more thoughtful person because I stayed. I have no doubt that the deep commitment of our staff and trustees to equity and inclusion is embedded in the fabric of our organization. Meyer is ready for Michelle and its staff to continue to deepen and hone that work.

Tagging Michelle in

Before I even stepped foot inside Meyer, I wrote in the 2002 annual report that we were in the early stages of an evolutionary process. I promised absolute commitment in the pursuit of a better Oregon for all, and I have made good on that pledge. Now, given our transformation over the past six years, Meyer is clearly poised for a new leader who will bring a fresh perspective. Michelle is that leader.

Today, Meyer talks about advancing justice and ending inequity. We know Oregon can do better, and today's Meyer is committed to help.

We're a Portland-based, Oregon-serving foundation with more than $800 million in assets. I'm a third-generation Oregonian who has struggled to level the barriers between rural and urban Oregon. Michelle, born and raised in Queens, with family ties to Oregon, brings a record of connecting and building relationships that will serve Oregonians regardless of where they live.

Michelle's professional narrative, rooted in social justice and civil rights, reflects her deep commitment to directing change. Shifting the dynamics to benefit people of color, low-income and other marginalized communities by lifting their voices, challenging the status quo and redistributing power — that is what she is about.

And it's important to acknowledge something else Michelle brings to Meyer and to Oregon: her experiences as a woman of color and as a child of immigrants. Through the lens of her life, she has developed an uncanny ability to traverse the very course Meyer is on.

I am excited that Michelle is poised to take this amazing staff, our trustees, stakeholders and partners further along the road to equity. Under her guidance, Meyer will have an even greater impact in Oregon, breaking down longstanding institutional policies and structures that promote disparities.

I have tried to do good, but with Michelle's leadership, Meyer can and will do better. And that gives me great hope.

—Doug 🎤🎤

 

Doug Stamm has served as president and chief executive officer at Meyer Memorial Trust since April 1, 2002. He steps down on April 27, 2018 after leading the organization for 16 years.

Tamolitch Falls is a unique Oregon feature west of Eugene, where the McKenzie River surfaces from underground lava fields to create this extraordinary “Blue Pool.”

The Willamette River Initiative is in the midst of a transformation.

As we enter the final year of our 10-year commitment to support efforts to achieve meaningful, measurable improvements in the health of the Willamette River and its tributaries, our grantees and partners have accomplished much. But as a recent article in the Corvallis Gazette-Times underscored, our collective quest for a healthy river isn't complete.

Summertime water temperatures throughout the basin are still dangerously warm for native coldwater fish. Toxic pollutants leach into our waterways at unacceptable levels, while invasive plants threaten to alter our native ecosystems. Floodplain habitats, while more abundant than when we began this work, remain too rare. Meanwhile, population growth and climate change are affecting our watershed in ways we don't yet fully understand.

Tackling those challenges will take sustained investment and coordination well beyond March 2019, when the Willamette River Initiative ends.

So, together with our partners, we're planning how best to support the next phase of the Willamette restoration and protection movement. We envision a stronger, more inclusive, nimble and community-driven alliance of Willamette River stakeholders, connected by an entity that provides coordination, technical assistance, and other services while advocating on members' behalf for actions that support river health.

Our community has laid the foundation for this planning process over many years and many conversations. You'll find some of that backstory in this grounding document, and also in this memo detailing our initiative's past, present, and hopes for the future.

While our vision for this new entity is still taking shape, based on our experience and the feedback we've received so far, there are certain traits we know it must have. You can find a full list here.

Conversations with our community have also given us a solid starting sense of the functions this entity could perform and support services it could provide for the field. We've outlined them here.

We have convened an advisory group to help us make this vision a reality. Group members, who are listed here, have a wealth of experience in river health and related issues. Some are longtime members of the Willamette restoration community. Others bring deep expertise in related fields. All are passionate about building a river movement that is effective, equitable and sustainable.

The advisory group will meet several times in the coming months. We're also planning opportunities for the broader Willamette community to help shape this new era in Willamette restoration, during spring and summer 2018. View our planning timeline to learn about opportunities to engage as we move forward.

We'll post periodic updates on the planning process on WRI's website, and share them in our newsletter. Subscribe to stay in the loop.

— Kelly

I've written a lot about change over the past decade at Meyer Memorial Trust.

There was the change, about six years ago, when Meyer began its first uncertain exploration of equity. Four years ago we promised change, in our equity statement, to make equity as much a part of our everyday operation as it was a part of our mission. There was change three years back, when we took time to reconsider Meyer's 33 years of responsive grantmaking, and two years ago with the launch of our new program frameworks, focusing our investments in Oregon into four areas Oregonians identified as crucial to making the state better for all its residents: housing, education, the environment and building stronger communities. Last year, the change became personal, when I announced that I'd be stepping away from the role of Meyer's chief executive officer this year. Michelle J. DePass will take over the helm April 30.

I've got one more change to announce, and it's a significant one: We've purchased a property in Portland's historic Albina community that we plan to redevelop into Meyer's new headquarters.

The property, 2045 N. Vancouver, sits at the corner of North Tillamook Street and North Vancouver Avenue.

We could have relocated anywhere. But this property felt exactly right. When I first arrived at Meyer, its office was at 1515 Market Square, where the Fred Meyer Charitable Trust, then led by Executive Director Charles Rooks, was established in 1982. We've leased and worked out of our current offices in the Pearl District for a dozen years. Our new offices will be Meyer's third, and permanent, home.

I don't have many logistics to share yet. We're imagining a three-story office building. Construction is expected to take about a year, and Meyer staff, many of whom live nearby in the North and Northeast Portland neighborhoods, will begin working in the building by March 2020. We've selected project^ to develop the project and Fieldwork Design & Architecture to re-imagine the property. An existing cinder block and metal sheet structure is in poor shape and will be removed, but timber supports inside will be creatively reused in the new design. Early plans are for roughly 20,000 square feet of workspace. An internal project team is working to finalize the timeline and key milestones until move-in, slated for the first quarter of 2020.

We're excited that our organization will be working in the same neighborhood with longtime stakeholders and partners, including the Urban League of Portland, Self Enhancement Inc., Portland Community Reinvestment Initiatives, North by Northeast Community Health Center, Portland Opportunities Industrialization Center + Rosemary Anderson High School and Portland African American Leadership Forum, to name just a few. Organizations focused on the well-being of communities that have long faced disparate treatment have deep roots in Albina.

As we decided on the property, we turned our attention back in time. We began to research the original Native inhabitants who called this land home. We dug into the archives, from fire insurance maps to Portland trolley maps, from U.S. Census records to county taxation records. We cracked open Portland atlases and accounts by local historians, namely Raymond Burrell III, E. Kimbark MacColl, Helen M. Casey, Kimberly S. Moreland and Roy E. Roos. We searched online to read about Volga Germans and to listen to the oral histories of Oregon's African American railroad porters.

Our plot sits at a crossroads of sorts, overlapped by school district designations and neighborhood association boundaries, at the southern edge of the city of Albina, which once outpaced Portland as Oregon's fastest growing city.

The area falls within the sprawling tribal grounds of the Kalapuya, who lived in an area that stretched from the Cascade mountains west to the Willamette River. This land had been occupied by indigenous people since time immemorial prior to the arrival of European Americans, and today the Portland area continues to be home to a vibrant urban Native community. We feel it is important that Meyer begin the process of buying the property and building its new headquarters by acknowledging that Native lands are still occupied due to deception and broken treaties.

After Native Americans were killed and pushed off their homelands, the U.S. government, through the Oregon Donation Land Act of 1850, gave the heavily forested land that became Albina to white settlers who agreed to live there and cultivate their claims for four years. The act explicitly excluded African Americans and Hawaiians and dispossessed Native Americans.

Here is how an advertisement published in The Oregonian described Albina in 1876:

above high water, and with a fine view of the City of Portland ... The location is unsurpassed for health and enjoys a cool breeze from the North in the hottest weather.

The original dimensions of Albina encompassed an area from Tillamook Street (then known as Grant Street) on the south, north to Russell and Morris streets, and from the Willamette River east to Union Avenue (now Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard).

A plat for the new town was filed in 1873, planning out its first streets.

In 1880, there were only 143 people living in Albina. Within a decade, the population had grown to more than 3,000. Even as racist gangs blew up a pair of Chinese-owned laundries and burned the homes of Chinese farmers on the slopes west of downtown Portland, threatening all people of Chinese descent with more bloodshed if they didn't leave the city, waves of northern European immigrants were welcomed into the Portland area, with Irish and then Volga German-Russians, Swedes and Poles moving into Albina.

In 1891, as the last of the streetcar lines were being electrified, voters in Albina and in the nearby towns of East Portland and Portland approved a measure to consolidate into a single city, Portland.

According to Fred Leeson, the former reporter for The Oregonian who wrote My-Te-Fine Merchant: Fred Meyer's Retail Revolution, Frederick Grubmeyer arrived in Portland from Brooklyn in 1909. The German immigrant rented a single room near the eastern end of the Broadway Bridge, in the working class Eliot neighborhood, just a few blocks from an elaborately trimmed Victorian house built by Charles and Charlotte Schulenburg at 2013 N. Vancouver, at what would become, more than 100 years later, the southern end of Meyer's new property.

There, Fred Grubmeyer conceived of a coffee and tea delivery business while around him Portland boomed as a shipping town.

Most of the state's African American population lived in the lower section of Northwest Portland. A small number of African Americans also lived in the historic Albina community, making up less than 1 percent of the population in the 1910 census. But real estate covenants and redlining pushed African Americans into lower Albina, between North Russell Street west of Williams Avenue and lower North Broadway near what is now the Moda Center.

Gradually, black Portlanders pressed to the north and east, moving into neighborhoods previously occupied by European immigrants, many of whom, including the man who now called himself Fred Meyer, moved on to more affluent neighborhoods further from the city center. African Americans turned lower Albina into the city's cultural capital. At its core, it was an inclusive, fully functioning residential neighborhood, serving as a center for the arts, small businesses, schools and faith institutions. The majority of Portland's black residents lived there by 1939.

Housing was cheap and close to a good transit system, and black men found work nearby as railroad porters, dining car waiters, clerks and in other railroad jobs. Black people weren't welcomed in other areas of Portland until the creation of the large housing development called Vanport in 1942. Built in North Portland to house shipyard workers, it welcomed many African Americans recently arrived from the South. Around the same time, our research discovered that William Gordon, a railroad waiter from Paris, Texas, moved into 2013 N. Vancouver. His descendants still own property in the neighborhood.

When the Columbia River flooded in 1948, destroying Vanport, more than 10,000 African Americans were forced to resettle. White people displaced by the flood could choose where to live, while many of the black flood victims were steered back to the historic heart of the old city of Albina, where homes and industry rubbed shoulders.

Our new property was typical. It sits on a pair of tax lots that were used for residential and industrial purposes through the 1950s, before turning over to exclusive industrial use as an ironworks, sheet metal shop, foundry and school bus maintenance depot. It has been the site of Sergeants Towing's main impound yard and automotive repair shop since 1995.

Across the second half of the 20th century, civic ambition and disregard alike made their mark on the historic Albina community. The state cut a two-block wide chasm through the community for a new north-south freeway, now known as Interstate 5, replacing homes, businesses and boarding houses with six lanes of pavement. More Albina homes, schools and shops were razed for new municipal buildings, a hospital and an arena.

The disruptive impact of those and subsequent urban renewal efforts continue to reverberate through the historic Albina community.

Familiarizing ourselves with Albina's history is helping us to understand the land and people who have lived and worked there.

Meyer has endeavored to be a thoughtful funder for Oregon for 36 years. Now we're taking seriously the prospect of becoming the kind of neighbor that makes respectful, meaningful contributions to its community. We intend to honor the historic Albina community through our ongoing commitment to equity.

— Doug

From above, Meyer’s new property, 2045 N. Vancouver Ave., overlooks Interstate 5, grain elevators along the Willamette River, the Broadway and Fremont bridges and the skyline of Northwest Portland.

We open Meyer's 2018 Annual Funding Opportunity today! Our annual funding call invites applications from organizations, programs, initiatives and collaboratives determined to make systemic changes so the Oregon we live in and love becomes a state built on a foundation of equity. This is the third annual funding call since we redesigned Meyer's programs in 2016.

We launched our new funding program after 33 years as a mostly responsive grantmaker. In those days, the awards reflected a wide array of need based on the myriad requests we received. In Oregon, there's hardly a town without a sign marking a library, a food pantry or community gathering space this foundation helped to fund. Our impact was often just that tangible. Today, the impact is no less real, but it aims to be deeper and more profound.

Since our redesign, Meyer's grantmaking has grown significantly more focused. We've made 342 annual funding opportunity awards in the areas of community, education, housing and the environment since 2016, totaling $40 million. Through those grants, Meyer has supported the work of the Oregon For All coalition, a group of social justice nonprofits working to prevent policies that harm immigrant communities; the efforts of Craft3, working to establish a clean water loan program that helps Oregon homeowners, many of them low-income, repair or replace failing septic systems; the goals of Reading Results, aimed at increasing the number of benchmark level third-grade readers among historically underserved students in Multnomah County and the Nancy Devereux Center, guiding people experiencing homelessness in Coos County to find and keep permanent housing. These and hundreds of other awards reflect the innovation, intention and impact of organizations committed to removing barriers and creating pathways toward a more just and equitable Oregon for all.

As I wind down my role as Meyer's chief executive officer, I'm extremely grateful to our nonprofit partners who have leaned in with us over the past two years to help shape our equity-based funding portfolio frameworks and share their insights on equity, policy and systems change, innovation, risk and opportunity to deepen Meyer's impact.

I feel a great sense of hope for the future of Oregon as a result of our state-wide partners' dedicated work and collaboration. It is a true privilege and honor to support and work shoulder-to-shoulder in moving your good efforts forward.

We eagerly look forward to reviewing applications received this year!

— Doug

Those unfamiliar with the term "tipping" in the nonprofit context may be wondering why as a funder we are advising how much you should leave on your restaurant bill. While tipping fortunately may not be a very common occurrence with nonprofits, it has significant consequences on the legal/tax status for an organization that may be in jeopardy of being tipped (and ultimately its ability to attract funding). As the majority of our grantees are public charities who are responsible for maintaining their tax-exempt status, Meyer wants our organizations to be aware of this issue — and discuss ways to avoid the unintended consequences of tipping.

What is tipping and why does it matter to Meyer grantees?

One of the key elements reviewed for 501(c)(3) determination (the most common tax exempt classification by the IRS) is an organization's sources of revenue and diversity of its funding. A 501(c)(3) organization is then further classified as a private foundation or a public charity. A public charity follows more flexible IRS rules since it's considered to be more accountable to the public as a widely, publicly supported organization. This is in contrast to private foundations, most of which have just a single source of funding and therefore more strictly monitored by the IRS.

Tipping occurs when a large contribution from a single donor to a 501(c)(3) public charity causes that organization to fail the IRS public support test and is therefore "tipped" out of public charity status. The organization will then become reclassified by the IRS as a private foundation and will need to comply with more restrictive and complex legal and financial regulations.

The other huge impact of being tipped is that the organization may then face losing future funding. Since it's more difficult for funders to give funds to private foundations (many foundations only give grants to organizations with public charity status), fundraising and receiving grants could become significantly more challenging for the nonprofit.

What is public support and how does it get calculated?

The IRS requires a public charity to annually submit a Form 990 — which provides the organization's financial information — which is then made available to the public. As part of this form, the organization needs to calculate both its public support (income from the public) and total support (income from tax revenues, membership fees, government grants and contracts, gifts and grants from private foundations, public charities, individuals, corporations, etc.) over a five-year period (current year and prior four years). While there are complex rules around calculating public support percentages and the different options for doing so (additional information can be found via the resource list at the end of this article), it is crucial to maintain this support to ensure continued public charity status.

How does a nonprofit avoid tipping?

First and foremost, a nonprofit should be highly aware of its overall funding situation and the portion of its income derived from the public. Do you have a low public support percentage (or barely meeting the 33.3 percent threshold)? Are you currently receiving funding from just one or two sources? Are you expecting to receive a significant grant from a private foundation soon — how will this impact your overall revenue?

The most important thing that a nonprofit must do to avoid tipping is to diversify their funding to include substantial public support. That means securing funding from multiple sources and more than one private foundation, such as government funding, donor-advised funds and of course the general public/individuals. While this may be easier said than done for some organizations — particularly for new or smaller organizations with limited fundraising capacity — this will be key to maintaining the organization's status and overall long-term financial health. In certain cases, a potential large grant by a funder may ultimately need to be restructured (decreasing the grant amount, changing payout timeline, etc.) so as not to tip the organization.

An alternative option used in some circumstances is for an organization to apply to the IRS to classify an award as an "unusual grant." While this is a somewhat complex process, getting an "unusual grant" ruling (which completely omits a single substantial grant from the organization's public support test) may be a possible solution.

While nonprofits operating with small budgets and/or with a narrow base of funding, as well as newly formed nonprofits with seed funding, may be more vulnerable to tipping, any public charity can be tipped if their funding is not carefully and regularly monitored.

Below is a list of resources as a starting point. Organizations concerned about being at high risk for tipping are strongly recommended to consult their accountants, tax advisors or lawyers with nonprofit expertise for further guidance.

Tipping resources

• IRS Schedule A (Form 990 or Form 990-EZ) Public Charity Status and Public Support and IRS Instructions for Schedule A
• Information about public support test from the Foundation Center
• Council on Foundations - Foundation Basics

— Mijounga

I used to write grants and didn't exactly love doing it, so I feel the pain of grantwriters: When a funding opportunity opens, they are tasked with figuring out how to present the most compelling information possible and persuade a funder that a particular project is worthy of investment. To add to the stress, funders' selection criteria can seem obscure, with processes that are often daunting, unclear and even seemingly arbitrary.

Our values dictate that we strive to be transparent about our grantmaking and open regarding our decision-making processes. In addition to our website's Applicant Resources section (where we have compiled useful information, templates and examples) and the many in-person and virtual information sessions we've organized around the state, I'd like to offer the following — hopefully helpful — tips to make the application process easier and your proposal more successful.

Determine eligibility and alignment

Many organizations are eligible to apply for Meyer funding, but not all of them will be in alignment with our goals.

To be eligible, your organization must fulfill certain requirements, such as having tax-exempt status and meeting our nondiscriminatory policy, among others.

To show alignment, however, you have to demonstrate that your project or proposal "fits" with Meyer's goals, i.e. not only that your project will help Meyer achieve a portfolio's desired outcomes but also that you have a strong analysis of how your work is (or is demonstrably committed to be) rooted in equity and inclusion.

If this is still too vague, information sessions are great opportunities to engage with our staff, hear us talk about our funding priorities and ask questions. You should also check out what each portfolio funded last year. Building Community's award list is here, Equitable Education's award list is here, Healthy Environment's list is here, and Housing Opportunities' list is here.

Familiarize yourself with our portfolios, grant types and amounts

In the Initial Application, you will choose one portfolio goal and up to two outcomes your proposed work will help achieve. Spend some time reading about the different portfolios, their grant types and their maximum amounts, and decide which goals your work will most likely help to accomplish. If you're unsure about what the types of funding mean, please click here. To find out about maximum amounts, visit each portfolio's page.

If you still have questions after looking at the portfolios or feel like you fit in multiple places, email us at questions [at] mmt.org (questions[at]mmt[dot]org) and our staff will get in touch with you. You may also take a look at Meyer's frequently asked questions page.

Use plain language

When talking about your work, don't assume we know what you do, who you are, or what communities you serve. Answer each question fully and use as plain a language as possible, providing examples if appropriate, and avoiding jargon and acronyms.

Perhaps a good question to ask may be: If a friend read your application, would she understand what your organization does or what your proposal is about? If the answer is no, then chances are we probably won't either.

The cardstack above illustrates three approaches to writing the program description for "Awesome Organization." As you can see, finding the sweet spot of clarity and simplicity can make a big difference.

Connect the need for your project to its root causes

Your proposal has a better chance of rising to the top if you can articulate clearly (a) how your work will dismantle barriers for underserved communities or (b) how your project will somehow address the root or systemic causes of a problem.

Using Awesome Organization as an example again, we can say that improving access to chocolate (or food or shelter or education) is a worthy cause in its own right, but Awesome Organization's proposal would be significantly more competitive if it demonstrated that it not only addresses the immediate need of the community to access chocolate but that it also understands what creates that immediate need — lack of farmer training and access to capital, especially for farmers from underserved communities — and how the organization can effect long-lasting change — providing low- or no-interest loans to farmers to keep chocolate affordable and addressing the barriers that prevent them from connecting to each other and accessing spaces that allow them to innovate.

Want more information? Sign up for our Building Community's newsletter and read Erin Dysart's blog about how Building Community thinks about the Direct Service-Root Causes connection.

Some additional tips

Create or update your profile in GrantIS as soon as possible

And consider that …

• The setup takes a few days.
• If you already have a profile, you'll need to update it. (Before you submit your application, we will ask you to certify that your organization's information is correct.)
• If you are applying through a fiscal sponsor, the process can take additional time.

"Right-size" your ask

• Familiarize yourself with the range of funding amounts in your chosen portfolio. In determining whether your request is appropriate, we will consider your project size, project complexity, project budget, organization size and what other funding you've secured.

Include key information in the body of the application

• We receive so many initial applications that — as much as we would like to — we may not be able to read attached materials we have not specifically requested. Having said that, if you are citing a report or quoting experts, please include links in the body of the narrative instead of providing a bibliography. It saves you words and it makes it easier for us to find the information.

Share the good ... and the bad

• We love to hear about the great work you're doing. But if your organization is going through a transition, has experienced some challenges recently or is expecting some rough times ahead, note it in your application as well and explain what you've done or are going to do to address the challenge.

If you're not invited to submit a full proposal, ask for feedback

• We'd be happy to go over your application and share our perspective on what you can consider when submitting your next application.

Once again, we are looking forward to reading about all that you're accomplishing.

See you at the information sessions!

— Violeta

Preparing a project budget begins with capturing the correct numbers. Simpler, straightforward projects are typically fine just focusing on creating a clear and accurate budget.

For organizations with large, complex or multiyear projects, more advanced budgeting techniques can be helpful. Numbers have meaning in themselves, but the budget framing tell a larger story about the organization's values and how it is approaching the project. It requires strategic thinking. Without some strategy, the budget for a complex project may fall flat or raise more questions than it answers.

Here are some practical considerations as you prepare budgets for larger, complicated projects.

Understand the funder's guidelines

The crucial and often overlooked first step in the grant process is to orient to the funders' requirements. Is it willing to be the only funder on a project? Does it require matching funds from other sources? Is it only willing to fund a certain percentage of the project budget or the organization's operating budget? Does it like to see an organization's own investment in a new project before seeking outside support? Getting that clarity up front will guide both your thinking about fit with the funder and also strategy about how to frame the budget.

At Meyer, we are rarely the first or the only funder of a project. Beyond that, there are few generalizations. We look at proposals differently based on the type and size of the project and the type of funding requested. More nuanced explanations can be found in funding guidelines for each portfolio.

Locate your proposal on the project timeline

Timing is a crucial aspect of a proposal, and capturing timing in a budget can be a little tricky. It may be helpful to think about the larger project and the steps that build on each other for a larger vision. We often see projects that build on some prior work or pilot effort and want to bring to bear the data, understanding, connections and vision to scale up the project or new business line. In these types of proposals, the narrative sections of the application will describe this pilot step and how it informed the larger vision.

The budget can mirror that progression by reflecting the work that has gone on up to the point an applicant applies and capturing it in the budget. Put another way, your project budget doesn't need to start at the time of application. Your project may be a four-year effort, starting with the year before the application, including a two-year grant period and also a year after the grant ends. Being clear about how the proposed grant period fits into the larger project timeline helps to ground your efforts and orient the reader.

If you are using Meyer's sample budget templates to describe a multi-year project, the project or capacity-building formats can be adjusted to show multiple years.

Consider your framing – wide-angle or close-up?

Related to timing, we often see that a project is defined discretely, as a finite piece of a larger effort. With this kind of close-up framing, it often appears that Meyer is being asked to fund 100 percent of the project, and this bumps up against the notion that Meyer is rarely a first or only funder of a project. To get around that issue, you might consider putting a wider angle on the project framing by showing the work that has come before it or the work expected after the grant, as long as it is reasonably connected. This wider angle can show a more diverse range of financial support for the proposal, and consequently, it does not appear that Meyer is being asked for 100 percent of the project budget. Panning out so far that the project is framed as a 10-year effort, however, loses a lot of detail and punch. Balance is prudent.

Describe the role that Meyer funding can play

We understand that, for many projects, any funding will help. For others, a Meyer grant represents something different, and it is often larger or more flexible than many other sources of grants or revenue. If the Meyer funds can play a certain role in the support of your project, describe that in your project budget and narrative. Some examples of the roles we are often asked to play:

• Experiment with new approach or prototype.
• Evaluate a demonstration project.
• Support efforts to build diversity, equity and inclusion in your work.
• Leverage or matching grant for public funders.
• Fill a key funding gap.
• Complement more restricted grants and contracts.
• Share funds with partners in a collaborative effort.
• Provide support during a critical transition.
• Augment advocacy and systems change efforts.
• Build a new or strengthen an existing skill base in the organization.
• Achieve a level of work that unlocks funding from other, larger sources.

Describing the role of Meyer funds, if appropriate for your project, can build a more compelling case for your grant proposal.

Reflect your organization's commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion

Every organization Meyer partners with is expected to share our commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). As such, project budgets can also be a good place to reflect your organization's commitment to DEI in your external or program delivery as well as in internal work of the organization. When DEI is centered in a proposal, it can raise some additional costs for the organization, such as training consultation, compensating community partners, collaboratively sharing grant funds, or data management and evaluation to track DEI outcomes, to name just a few. You are encouraged to include these important costs in the project budget.

The bottom line? For complex or multiyear projects, don't overlook budgets as an opportunity to amplify the application narrative, strategically frame the project, build the case for Meyer funding and reflect your organizational values. Budgets are an integral part of the application and more than a mechanical exercise.

— Theresa