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

Meyer believes that we have to work better together in order to achieve our mission of a flourishing and equitable Oregon, and we know that working collaboratively to tackle complex issues together takes resources. We have structured our 2018 Annual Funding Opportunity to encourage and support collaboration across organizations in addition to funding the work of individual organizations. We do this in the following ways:

• Organizations may submit an additional grant application on behalf of a collaborative even if they are also applying for grant to support their own organization's work or they have an active Meyer grant.
• Organizations applying on behalf of a collaborative may request up to $250,000 for projects in order to accommodate the scope of work being tackled by large-scale collaborations and, in many situations, to support the participation of multiple organizations.
• Organizations applying on behalf of an emerging collaborative — meaning they are just getting started in their work together — may apply for a planning grant of up $35,000.

What do we mean by a collaborative?

To determine eligibility for collaborative grants (not the planning grants), we ask that organizations applying on behalf of a collaborative certify that the following three things are true:

• The collaborative structure and priorities are inclusive and demonstrate an equitable approach.
• The roles and responsibilities of collaborative partners are clearly defined and demonstrate an equitable approach.
• The decision-making processes demonstrate an equitable approach.

What qualifies for collaborative grants?

With the grant funds that are available to collaboratives, we are looking to support collaborations that have established partners' roles and responsibilities, that have clarity of purpose, and where all partners are committed and on the same page. We also want to support collaborations that have integrated equity into the way the collaborative operates in terms of who is at the table, how decisions are made and how power, resources and responsibilities are shared among partners. Although we don't have a hard definition of a "large collaborative," projects that will be competitive for grants at the top end of our scale generally have a large budget, a significant number of partners, a demonstrated history of successfully working together and are working on large-scale change.

As with all applications, strong collaborative requests demonstrate clear alignment with a portfolio goal and associated outcomes. We look for policy, systems change and movement building strategies that are grounded in the perspective of the communities and constituencies they represent, and we will assess collaborative requests based on our values and equity commitment.

If you are thinking about a collaborative proposal, consider attending our information session webinar on collaborative proposals on Monday, April 2. Finally, below you can find some answers to common questions about collaborative applications for those of you thinking about taking advantage of this opportunity.

What does Meyer mean by "roles and responsibilities of partners are clearly defined"?

When we say "roles and responsibilities of partners are clearly defined," we mean that the partners all have a clear understanding, in writing, for how the collaboration will move its work forward. This can include a defined decision-making process, defined membership and leadership levels (including how new membership will be determined), which partners will bring specific resources to the table (staff, financial, etc.), and how resources will be shared among the partners. Unless you are requesting a planning grant, we ask you to share your Memoranda of Agreement (MOA), letters of commitment or similar documents that your collaborative has in place to capture your joint agreements and understandings.

What exactly does Meyer mean by the phrase "demonstrates an equitable approach"?

There are a number of ways that different collaboratives do this. Examples of ways that collaboratives demonstrate this are:

• Clarity about a shared purpose and goals for the collaborative and that communities most affected by the issues you aim to address have informed and shaped this.
• All partners have a voice in decision-making.
• Clarity about resource sharing. Even if the request is for Meyer funds to only go to one partner, we will consider the collaborative's overarching approach to sharing resources. We trust the collaborative to determine how grant funds can best support its collaborative effort, but we will look for some indication that the different needs of partner organizations to participate as full partners have been considered.
• Co-creation of work plan and budgets.
• Clarity about ownership of work products and credit for work completed and accomplishments.
• Commitments of different partner representatives to participate and commitments of resources they are contributing.

How does Meyer define the difference between a collaborative, a partnership and a contractual relationship?

For our Annual Funding Opportunity, we will prioritize funding for collaboratives tackling systems change work and problems that can't be accomplished by organizations working in isolation and doing "business as usual." An application generally won't be considered a collaborative for our purposes when one or more organizations are signing on to support a policy agenda of a lead organization. We also don't consider contractual relationships between nonprofits as "collaboratives" where one organization has hired one or more other organizations as contractors to provide specific services.

Do the following types of applicants meet the criteria for collaborative proposals?

• Collaborations between separate programs that operate independently but are part of the same umbrella organization? (A: No)
• Coalitions that have come together around a specific short-term project or campaign? (A: Yes, if power-sharing and working together toward a shared goal — not just signing names onto a list of supporters)
• Coalitions that function as a program of one organization? (A: Yes, if involving multiple organizations, power-sharing, collective decision-making and working together toward a shared goal)

How can funds be used?

Although we are open to considering a variety of uses, most often funds support the time of partners to participate in collaborative activities, staffing support to coordinate communication and the work of the collaborative and/or consultant support to advance the collaborative's agenda.

Still have questions? Please join us at our April 2 virtual information about collaborative proposals (RSVP here) or contact us at questions [at] mmt.org (questions[at]mmt[dot]org).

— Mike

A crowd gathers near Dawson Park in North Portland for a climate justice rally lead by a coalition of Meyer grantees: OPAL, Oregon Just Transition Alliance, APANO, Beyond Toxics, Environmental Justice Oregon, PCUN, Unite Oregon & Rural Organizing Project.

The Building Community portfolio is excited to share this year's open call for applications between March 15 and April 18. Approximately $4.3 million in funding has been designated to advance three goals:

• Community connection and belonging.
• Strong nonprofit leaders and organizations.
• Civic engagement and systems change.

Our portfolio's goals for this coming year represent an adjustment from what we had been using over the past two years. The adjustments were made, in part, based on feedback we received from grantees and applicants and are an attempt to more clearly communicate the focus of the portfolio. Arts and culture aimed at encouraging inclusion, for example, had been a distinct goal in the past. With the new changes, arts and culture organizations are eligible to apply in any of the goal areas. More information on these three goal areas can be found in the Goals and Outcomes section of our website. Additional insight on arts organizations can be found here.

This portfolio is focused on both creating opportunities to equitable outcomes and removing barriers that make these outcomes difficult to achieve. Equitable outcomes for communities that have been and continue to be marginalized are of particular interest to us as are the different ways in which these communities have a voice in decisions that impact their lives. We believe that when people are part of inclusive and supportive communities — when they can see promising paths for themselves, influence decisions that affect them and connect with others and express their shared humanity — they can truly thrive. And we all benefit.

Put another way, the Building Community portfolio is interested in who is served and how they are involved in achieving equitable outcomes for themselves. Through our investments, we hope to encourage a sense of shared responsibility for creating a multicultural society in which all people can thrive and realize their full potential. More insight on how we think about determining whether or not there is a fit between your work and Meyer's goals can be found here.

Learning from the past two years

With the benefit of two years of grantmaking as a program, the Building Community team and board of trustees have tried to learn from applicants and grantees about how the priorities of this portfolio are understood and how the work toward equitable outcomes takes shape. We always appreciate feedback!

In our 2017 round of funding, we received 284 applications or roughly $31 million in requests. With a budget of $4.6 million, we were able to make 66 grants — about 23 percent of all applicants. Notable characteristics from last year's batch include:

• An increase in the percentage of applicants from rural communities (from 30 percent in 2016 to 37 percent in 2017) and from those who work statewide (from 14 percent to 20 percent over the two years).
• A slight increase in the percentage of first-time applicants (15 percent in 2016 to 18 percent in 2017).
• An increase in applicants seeking capacity building support (from 30 percent to 42 percent).
• A drop in those requesting operating support (from 15 percent in 2016 to 10 percent in 2017).
• About 60 percent of applicants in 2017 reported that they were in the early stages (i.e., Not Yet Started, Ready to Start or Launched) of our diversity, equity and inclusion spectrum tool.

Get more information

Over the next month, Meyer staff will be traveling the state to share information about the 2018 funding opportunity and our four portfolios. A list of information sessions can be found here. The Building Community team will be hosting two portfolio-specific webinars on April 3 and April 6, where we will provide more details about our grantmaking and respond to specific questions.

Of course, you can also visit our new Applicant Resources page for more information. And feel free to contact us at questions [at] mmt.org (questions[at]mmt[dot]org).

— Dahnesh

The Equitable Education portfolio is excited to announce our 2018 Annual Funding Opportunity! Meyer will invest approximately $3.4 million to advance our vision of ensuring meaningful public education for all students in Oregon through focusing on the urgent needs of today's students and reshaping the system to eliminate gaps before they begin.

This is the second round of annual funding for the Equitable Education portfolio. At the end of 2017, we awarded 50 grants out of 167 competitive applications. These grants reflected a mix of rural and urban organizations offering both a vision and approach to directly address educational disparities. Of primary importance was their collective belief that for Oregon to flourish, each student — regardless of race, ethnicity, family income, geography, disability, sexual/gender identity or language — must have the opportunity to succeed in school. We are excited to see how this work flourishes over the next few years!

The Equitable Education portfolio will begin accepting Initial Applications on March 15, with a deadline of 5 p.m. April 18, to advance one of the following Equitable Education funding goals:

1. Build a movement to align community + education institutions to create systems- and policy-level impact.
2. Improve student achievement and college and career readiness.

Meyer has identified several intended outcomes under each of these two goals, and we invite you to take a deeper look at our funding goals, strategies and outcomes as you consider how your work aligns with the vision for this portfolio.

What did we learn from last year's Annual Funding Opportunity?

The 2018 Annual Funding Opportunity represents a refinement of last year's framework based on current data as well as feedback we received from nonprofit and education partners. It's also designed to create what we believe to be the greatest opportunity to leverage Meyer's investments in education.

Although there might be modest adjustments to this year's Equitable Education goals and outcomes, equity remains central to all portfolio grantmaking. In 2018, successful applicants will continue to demonstrate a clear commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. Through this lens, organizations will propose a vision and approach to analyzing and directly addressing education disparities experienced by our priority populations across Oregon. These students include:

• Students of color
• Indigenous students
• English Language Learners
• First-generation college students
• Students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/or other sexual/gender identities
• Students with disabilities
• Students living on low incomes
• Students in foster care

After our experience last year, we decided to create a visual guide to clarify what fits within the scope of our portfolio. We designed a "fit flowchart" that gives a broad-level glance to see if your work would generally fit with the scope of the portfolio; a companion piece to this is a one-page "insights" document that answers some common questions addresses application competitiveness. You can view that resource here.

What doesn't fit within the Equitable Education portfolio

The Equitable Education portfolio team values the essential work occuring every day across the education continuum, and we recognize that preparing an application requires a considerable investment of time and resources by an organization. Insights from last year have provided us with a clear perspective on what doesn't fit within the Equitable Education portfolio:

• Education programs with universal, one-size-fits-all strategies not specifically designed for priority students, regardless of school, district or regional demographics.
• Direct early education services; we will, however, support students during the transition between early education programs and kindergarten as well as preparing public schools to offer a smooth transition from home to school.
• Strategies to address college retention and completion; however, we are interested in supporting efforts that smooth the transition between high school, or equivalent, and college and/or career.
• K-12 private schools.
• New or expanded programming developed without meaningful engagement with the priority population it's intended to impact.
• Environmental education programming not specifically designed to meet the academic, social or cultural needs of priority students.

Learn more

Over the next month, general information sessions will be held across the state. In addition, two Equitable Education webinars will be conducted March 19 and March 23. You can sign up for the Equitable Education webinars here. If you're unable to attend any sessions, or if you have questions about a specific project, please feel free to contact us at questions [at] mmt.org or 503-228-5512. You can also check out our Feb. 27 "Get to know Meyer's Equitable Education portfolio" webinar where we shared insights into what fits within the scope of our portfolio, offered our strategy for investing in the "gap," introduced our priority populations and much more.

Finally, we've organized a set of Applicant Resources to make the process easier. You'll find additional information, tools and advice on topics ranging from diversity, equity and inclusion to Meyer's definition of collaborations.

We look forward to working with you in the coming year!

— Matt