--Printer-friendly version--

Accomplishments:

• The bold decision by the TCWF Board to stay the course for a decade was critical for long-term sustainability of resources, programs and issue focus. Throughout the VPI, the grantees developed a strong ownership of the Initiative, which was fostered by ongoing funding and relationships among grantees. Most grantees, as well as policymakers and opinion leaders, have attributed the VPI with creating a violence prevention movement.
• The annual conference created an opportunity for networking and celebration of the violence prevention work. The format for presenting at the VPI conference, developed over time, provided grantees an opportunity to submit a presentation and develop skills in presenting at conferences. Grantees became primary presenters at conferences, recognizing the growth and development of the work as well as the maturity of skills of those involved in the VPI.
• The Advisory Committee was a strong, well-respected group of individuals representing experts in the field of violence prevention, public health and criminal justice. This group lent credibility and provided important insights to the development and implementation of the VPI. The diversity of experience and professional backgrounds of the committee members provided a mechanism for staff to keep in touch with the “real world” from a variety of perspectives.
• Funding partnerships can be an effective strategy for expanding and leveraging grantmaking programs. As a result of leveraging funding from other foundations, TCWF expanded the original CAG Program sites from 10 to 18 throughout the state. These funding partnerships were essential in expanding the reach and support of the VPI at the local community level. TCWF staff designed opportunities to engage co-funders beyond providing support, which included joint site visits and reporting opportunities.
• TCWF staff helped the Foundation gain recognition in the field through the sharing of information and lessons from the Initiative, and involvement in efforts locally, statewide and nationally to prevent violence against youth. This included participation of staff on the Board of the National Funding Collaborative on Violence Prevention and involvement in the preparation of the California Attorney General’s report on violence prevention.
• Using the CDC model for creating a multipronged approach to develop the VPI provided an opportunity to contribute to creating and strengthening community programs, policy, leadership and research in the violence prevention field. The experimental nature of the VPI fostered a learning environment that was responsive and flexible.

Challenges:

• Turnover of Foundation staff had a significant negative impact on the Initiative. There were four changes in the program officers working on the VPI during the 10-year period. These changes impeded consistent management and knowledge of the history of the Initiative, as well as being a challenge for many grantees.
• There was no clear, consistent role for the Advisory Committee, particularly after the first few years, and a phase-out plan was not developed. The Advisory Committee played a key role in the early part of the VPI; however, over time, their role and responsibilities diminished. In addition, criteria for involvement and potential conflicts of interest (e.g., being a TCWF grantee), which should have limited involvement, were not clearly articulated.
• Some TCWF staff members were overinvolved in the management of VPI grants and in many cases became enmeshed with grantee operations. This was manifested in a number of ways, including staff providing directives to grantees about how to operate programs, manage budgets and hire staff. In addition, managing the role of being a “funder” rather than practitioner was also a challenge. Over time, some staff developed close personal relationships with some of the grantees. Such long-term funding arrangements, which can have the sense of “family,” can blur the distinction between funder and grantee and exacerbate the feeling of entitlement for some and isolation for others.
• The decision to implement a second set of evaluations was poorly timed, and not ideal, to be able to maximize involvement of grantees. These evaluations began in the last 18 months of the Initiative, which has proved to be a challenge for the evaluators. Some grantees felt imposed upon and wondered if and how this would be beneficial to their organizations and programs. In addition, others felt that they had already participated in the previous evaluation, which they felt should have been sufficient.
• TCWF’s decision to implement a dynamic grantmaking program allowed for organic and innovative changes; however, and at times added layers of complexity to an already highly complex grantmaking program. The revisions and changes appear throughout the VPI history with limited opportunities for reflection. With grantees implementing multiyear grants, many of these changes and rationales were not documented and explained thoroughly. At the mid-point of the VPI, staff made changes that had overarching impact on the programs but didn’t clearly communicate rationale to grantees. In hindsight, it seems most prudent and efficient to craft a simple infrastructure to not only reduce confusion and improve TCWF monitoring, but to also provide straightforward opportunities for grantee implementation and evaluation.
• While there are tremendous strengths of the Foundation’s long-term commitment, a ten-year grantmaking program is a very long proposition and can be unwieldy. Over the course of the VPI, there was significant staff turnover at the grantee sites and at the Foundation. It seems as though an environment of entitlement was fostered where some grantees believed that they, rather than the Foundation, were the drivers of the Initiative; however, very few seem to have developed strong sustainability plans to continue programs without TCWF funding.

Lessons Learned:

• Individuals and/or organizations that act as consultants in helping to develop a grantmaking strategy or program should not be eligible for funding in that program. A few individuals and organizations involved as consultants in the conceptualization of the VPI also became grantees, causing some confusion over the “ownership” of the Initiative, misunderstandings over who was in charge, and questions of favoritism in grant selection.
• Staff should be clear about their role as representatives of the Foundation. This includes maintaining discretion, confidentiality and high levels of professionalism to preserve an ethical relationship between grantees and the Foundation.
• The type, level and style of technical assistance to enhance the work of community-based grantees in an initiative remain an elusive question. Various styles and types of TA were offered to grantees, and there were issues related to trust and/or understanding of the need for TA among VPI grantees. Many of the CAG Program sites believed that the TA providers came in with a set agenda of how to “fix” organizations without a real focus or consideration of the site strengths and how to use them. In addition, varying levels of organizational development of the CAP sites proved to be a challenge in designing TA.
• Funding and support to attend conferences should be uniform and equitable for all grantees to ensure participation and promote fairness. Not all of the grantees received support to attend the conferences, which set up an inequitable dynamic among grantees. This added to the feelings of “in crowd” vs. others, especially for grantees funded from the beginning and those funded later in the Initiative.
• While it can be beneficial to convene grantees, it is important to ensure that the convenings are focused and do not distract from completing funded projects. Although the Foundation’s initial concept had only one annual convening for VPI grantees, over time grantees were convened more and more frequently. There were annual conferences, retreats, monthly policy meetings, video conferences, quarterly sessions and a series of other meetings. For many grantees, this was a challenge, and fewer periodic convenings sanctioned by TCWF would perhaps better address grantee needs and help alleviate these types of challenges.
• Communicating changes at the Foundation is critical and essential towards supporting grantmaking programs. In the final months of the VPI, despite continuous communication from staff, it appears that many VPI grantees have not fully understood TCWF’s transition from an initiative-driven to a responsive grantmaking foundation. As the Initiative winds down, many grantees are demonstrating a sense of denial – ignoring the fact that grants end in 2003, disbelief that the Foundation would conclude the VPI, or expecting that more funding will automatically be available because of the success of the VPI. All of these actions seem to have immobilized some grantees from planning beyond the end of the Initiative.
• Unintended outcomes from funded projects can provide a vehicle for the Foundation to explore complementary funding opportunities; however, staff should exercise caution to ensure that these new innovations remain focused on the overall goals of intended grantmaking strategies. Throughout the VPI, staff addressed contextual changes by incorporating and developing changes as the process evolved. This dynamic, responsive approach provided an opportunity for the Foundation to positively contribute to the violence prevention, youth development and leadership development fields. It was and is critical for the Foundation to be flexible to accommodate emerging movements, but it is even more important to remain focused on the original goals of the grantmaking strategy. Adopting an approach that takes into consideration changes in the field, encourages staff to stay informed about policy changes and connected with advocates, and helps ensure that grantmaking remains relevant.