Cleveland Foundation – 1969 Annual Report

The Cleveland Foundation was established in 1914 as the nation’s first com m unity foundation. Under the Tax Reform A ct of 1969 it is classified as a "publiclysupported organization^’ and is thus exempted from the Act's new provisions regarding private foundations, including excises.

The Cleveland Foundation’s purpose is to provide a way for any person to give money for his com m unity’s benefit, certain that changing needs will not make his gift obsolete. Some donors designate ultimate recipient organizations.

Others specify areas of concern such as child care, education, health and welfare, citizen involvement, strengthening the public service and cultural affairs. With these and many undirected gifts, The Cleveland Foundation actively supports projects in the broad ranges of philanthropy.

Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation was established in 1961 to sharpen the focus of philanthropy’s concern with the tough urban problems of today.

Under the Tax Reform Act of 1969, it is also classified as a “publicly supported organization’.’

It therefore is exempt from the Tax Reform Act's new provisions regarding private foundations.

Distribution Committee and Board of Trustees John Sherwin, C hairm an Raymond Q. Armington Thom as A. Burke Dr. Kenneth W. Clement Edward H. deConingh Mrs. Royal Firman, Jr. Edgar A. Hahn

H. Stuart Harrison Harvey B. Hobson James D. Ireland Frank E. Joseph George F. Karch Elmer L. Lindseth Thomas F. Patton

Grant Summary for 1969

The Cleveland Foundation

Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation

All G rant Paym ents in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

All G rant Paym ents in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

G rants Approved In 1969

Education Higher

$

2 86,556.01

$

3 48,738.01

Unpaid G rants D ecem ber 31,1969 $

216,620.00

G rants A pproved In 1969 $

5,000.00

$

32,644.00

Unpaid G rants D ecem ber 31,1969 $

11,856.00

E lem entary and S econd ary

160,4 3 3 .7 2

9 2 ,8 3 3 .7 2

104,600.00

223,667.33

23,720.00

420,4 8 5 .3 8

212,322.33 2 94,485.38

166,500.00

1 ,0 91,142.44

9 48,379.44

511,440.00

535,5 1 1 .4 4

5 49,411.44

367,100.00

H ospitals, H ealth, and M edical Program s

597,7 1 9 .5 7 8 86,508.75 3 41,022.39

776,063.25 859,1 8 9 .9 7 291,5 9 8 .8 2

654,300.00

C hildren and Youth Aged

Scholarships Special Program s T otals Cultural Affairs

- 0 - 0 -

10,000.00

- 0 —0 —

1,700.00

- 0 41,584.10

23,435.90

6,700.00

84,228.10

35,291.90

-0 —

-0 —

-0 — 21,770.53

—0 — - 0 -

-0

- 0 -

- 0 -

Health and Welfare

144,629.73 105,247.57

— 0— 1,613.28

- 0 -

—

C om m u nity Service O rg anizatio ns Totals Civic Affairs C itizen Involvem ent

432,1 5 9 .4 9

5 63,597.74

155,149.20

85,300.00

27,000.00

58,30 0 .0 0

2,2 5 7 ,4 1 0 .2 0

2 ,490,4 4 9 .7 8

1,059,326.50

86,913.28

48,770.53

58,300.00

1 28,625.88

2 40,975.41

76,718.47

5 3,943.37

76,784.81

110,888.56

512,8 8 9 .8 7

414,5 2 6 .6 0 1 59,548.00

134,609.00

155,805.00 15,000.00

91,325.63 110,833.34

64,479.37

265,696.00

Em ploym ent and E co no m ic D evelopm ent

367,7 4 4 .0 0

H ousing Strengthening the P u blic Service Totals Special Philanthropic Services G .C .A .F . A d m in istrative

239,3 2 2 .0 0

129,493.56

109,828.44

261,420.39

281,403.06

2 51,469.73

1,2 48,581.75

944,5 4 3 .5 7

586,851.91

4 86,168.76

5 60,346.84

4 36,632.23

155.941.50

152,441.50 659,549.67

3 .500.00

$ 579,782.04

$ 693,3 4 5 .4 7

$ 530,224.13

*

G .C .A .F . fo r G rants

9 ,794.57

*

Totals

155.941.50

8 11,991.17

3.500.00

G rand Totals

$5,288,587.33

$5,744,775.40

$2,528,218.41

‘ A lth o u g h G rea ter C lev eland A sso ciated Fou nd ation grant funds are held by T h e C leveland Fou nd ation , the G .C A .F . B oard of T rustees au thorizes its grants and grant paym ents. T h erefore, authorized and unpaid G .C .A .F . grants are reported on ly in the G .C .A .F . sum m ary.

Foundations and the Tax Reform Act of 1969

Last year, the Foundations' annual reports began with the observation that 1968 was an incredible year which presented great challenges and opportunities for philanthropy. Developments this past year marked 1969 as another incredible year, indeed, for foundations.

Even before the Congressional hearings and the resulting publicity, it became painfully clear to members of the Distribution Committee and our staff that the activities of America’s foundations were largely unknown or misunderstood by broad segments of the population.

A real sense of modesty had kept many foundations from publicizing their activities and developing a strong base of public support.

At the same time, a number of real abuses had crept into philanthropy, and stories of abuses by tax-exempt organizations grew rapidly out of all logical proportions. To Congress and to the public, it began to seem that the activities of foundations were not worth their tax exemptions.

Our staff was aware of the seriousness of the problem quite early. Dr. James A. Norton, director of The Cleveland Foundation and president of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation, testified before the Committee on Ways and Means of the U. S. House of Repre­ sentatives on February 19,1969. He came away convinced that restrictions upon foundation activities were likely to become law during 1969, and that prudent regulation obviously was needed.

In the April, 1969, issue of C hallen ge an d R esp on se (a periodical published for 10,000 friends of The Cleveland Foundation and the

Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation), Dr. N orton wrote: "The current Congressional review suggests the need for a renewed focus on philanthropy and its goal of serving man, as contrasted with other reasons for establishing foundations.. .The wisdom and sincerity with which we give will help determine whether other privileges, such as tax deductibility, go with it’.’

That issue of C h allen g e an d R esp on se recom­ mended actions — quite mild in retrospect — to ensure that legitimate foundations could continue to be philanthropic, and to enable the Federal government to detect and eliminate abuses of foundation privileges by other organizations and individuals.

This position was not universally accepted.

M any foundation executives throughout the country felt that foundation activities were so predominantly worthwhile and abuses so insignificant that Federal regulations were neither necessary nor desirable. M any persons also felt that, in the end, the parts of the Tax Reform Bill affecting foundations would be dropped, just as a number of similar Federal efforts to regulate foundations had failed in the past. They wanted to "keep quiet’’ and wait.

The Kent Smith Study But as the Ways and Means hearings drew to a close, it became increasingly apparent that the actions of this Congress would be different.

Animosities grew. Also, recipients of foundation grants were not coming forward in great numbers, nor were they providing information about the the real and growing need for foundation funds in any concerted manner.

Kent H. Smith, Chairman Emeritus of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation, and former member of the Distribution Committee of The Cleveland Foundation, tried to fill some of this inform ation void, using personal, non tax-exempt funds. In July, 1969, he commissioned a private study, titled: "The Effects of Organized Philan­ thropy Upon Educational Projects, Programs, Institutions and Systems in One IndustrialCommercial M etropolitan A rea’.' Two weeks later, the first 27 copies of the two-volume study were delivered to the office of Congressman Charles Vanik, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for study by the Committee before drafting the House Bill.

The Kent Smith study was quoted and reprinted in a variety of publications. It tended to support the case for continued encouragement of foun­ dations, and provided useable data concerning the growing need for them. The issue was no longer being lost by default. By the time the bill was discussed in the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate, other groups had joined in making more facts available. Ten other com ­ munity foundations joined The Cleveland Foundation in employing counsel to represent the special needs of all community foundations.

Under the Tax Reform Act, community founda­ tions which meet the tests of "public charities” or "50 percent organizations” are now exempt from classification as private foundations. This imposes a special obligation of leadership on them.

The Tax Reform Act, discussed in the February, 1970, issue of C h allen g e an d R espon se, contains significant departures from previous laws regarding private foundations. The changes are intended to prevent abuses and ensure that private foundations distribute their income for charitable purposes. In addition, to help pay the costs of enforcing the new law, private founda­ tions are required to pay an annual excise.

It is important to remember that the Tax Reform A ct of 1969 has not in any way lessened the need for organized philanthropy in the seventies.

It has produced changes in philanthropy’s

methods and directions, but many of these will probably prove beneficial to legitimate philan­ thropic efforts. Also, careful implementation and and strict enforcement of the new law will tend to make abuses impossible.

This year, all foundations are adjusting to the new regulations under the Tax Reform Act. M any small private foundations may decide to become separate trusts in community founda­ tions. The Cleveland Foundation is ready to discuss separate trusts or contributions to the Combined Fund to be of help to donors. The Associated Foundation is ready to assist with staff review of proposals, evaluations, or reporting when asked to do so.

Goals of Foundations To make clearer to prospective donors, to grant-seekers, and to the general public how a foundation operates, this year’s annual reports for the Foundations are prefaced by summaries of representative memoranda prepared by our staff for consideration by the Distribution Committee and the Board at its annual meeting in January, 1970. They cover only the four areas of foundation grant activity which were reviewed at that meeting. Other memoranda are routinely considered on foundation programs in health and welfare, youth services, the broader fields of of civic affairs, race relations and community planning. The report on the substantial growth of the Foundations in 1969, the grants which were made, and the auditor’s report follow the format we have used in previous years.

John Sherwin Chairman, Distribution Committee The Cleveland Foundation Chairman, Board of Trustees Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation

Thinking About Grant-Making in 1970

The general idea behind the establishment, operation and privileges of foundations is that some private money can be devoted to the well­ being of mankind — to philanthropy in its broadest sense.

Special foundations limit their m ajor activities in a variety of ways. Some deal only with certain problem areas, such as education or medical research. Others restrict their clientele group: for example, to needy children or to the residents of a defined geographic area.

The Cleveland Foundation is a social mechanism established so that philanthropists can designate recipient organizations or restrict the use of their donated funds in other ways, confident that a publicly appointed group of citizens will not let those funds continue to support designated recipients if and when the need or appropri­ ateness of such support ceases. In such instances, the Distribution Committee is able to turn donated funds toward new uses that continue to further the philanthropists' original charitable goals.

Those who choose to provide funds without designation or restriction can also remain confident that the informed and concerned Distribution Committee will use such funds to alleviate the community's most serious problems and advance its most urgent goals.

In 1961, six foundations joined in establishing the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation to fill what was regarded as a void in the functions of Cleveland's philanthropic organiza­ tions. The Associated Foundation was given four special purposes:

1. To encourage research on and solution of community problems.

2. To establish priorities for community action.

3. To make grants for research, pilot, experi­ mental and other projects toward the solution of such problems.

4. To encourage sound use of philanthropic funds.

To Make Good Grants Everyone who devotes thought and energy to making grants eventually concludes that wise philanthropy is no easy matter. It requires (beyond the hope of doing good), as thorough knowledge as possible of the problems to be attacked or the goals to be sought, an under­ standing of the environment relative to the the problems, the best possible theories or hypotheses about the probable results of actions, a good evaluation of the persons involved, and feedback on the results of philanthropysupported actions.

Those who have sought to realize the leadership potential inherent in foundation philanthropy also recognize that they must take the initiative in seeking organizations to receive grants. To respond solely to requests nearly guarantees that many problems will receive attention long after the opportunity to get a maximum return for dollars granted has passed, and that many goals will never be accomplished.

Because of its concern with such problems, the Board of Trustees of the Associated Founda­ tion in 1963 set forth some criteria of merit and priority by which proposed grants would be evaluated.

Criteria of Merit: • Degree of benefit to the entire community • Capability of the organization and its personnel to achieve expected results • Adequacy of proposed action to problems undertaken • Assurance of cooperation with groups in the same field • Appropriateness of timing • Possibility of future support by other agencies • Im probability of support from other agencies Criteria of Priority: • Seriousness of the problem • Possibility of action within a reasonable time • Use or testing of new methods and techniques • Implementation of prior research • Necessity of immediate action Hazards In Foundation Grant-Making These criteria have been useful in judging proposals for grants from both unrestricted and restricted funds. Even so, many hazards exist in the making of grants —hazards shared by the Board, which makes the final decision, and the staff.

Missing An Idea The greatest one, obviously, is that an opportunity to help a particularly creative project simply may not be recognized. Since this is a respon­ sibility where the staff can make the "final'' mistake as well as the first one, special efforts

are made by the staff to find whatever may be creative in every situation.

The Council on Foundations annual meetings nationally, and the Health and Welfare Institute locally, have been basic sources for every professional foundation staff member. They are excellent opportunities to get new ideas and become sensitive to new concerns. This past year, our staff members also attended meetings of the American Political Science Association, the American Society for Public Administration, the Committee for Econom ic Development, the National Conference on Government, the Ohio Planning Conference, the Association of Supervisors and Curriculum Development, the American Association of Junior Colleges, the N ational Conference on Social W ork, the Law Enforcement Institute and others.

Community Agenda Seminars, meetings with faculty members of different colleges and universities, board and committee meetings of every type, and personal contacts with leaders and other concerned citizens are part of every staff member’s job. Equally important, however, is a willingness to listen to anyone who approaches with a suggestion. This is a goal prompted not only by the responsibility to provide a service, but also because it may be the source of new knowledge and ideas.

The Hazard of Bad Timing Hazards can exist in making a grant too soon, (before the project and commitment have been developed,) or in making a grant too late, (after delay has stunted the optimism required to start a new project). The first of these dangers

seems more serious. If a project contains a good idea, there is a great temptation to think that "all the details and other problems can be worked out’.' This is particularly true when the idea seems logical, and lacking only in "some group relationships’.' On the other hand, unless the group with a germinal idea has the time to work it out, the group may never get ready to move ahead.

Our foundations have attempted to circumvent these dangers by making preliminary or planning grants in several instances. In a sense, these are the most risky of all grants. The planning may not solve all the problems involved, and the project still may not be feasible. The granting foundation also may raise the expectations of the group planning a project, so that a final negative evaluation might be regarded as a serious breach of faith, or a capricious "put down” by the establishment.

The Hazard of the Implied Promise A local foundation has a particular responsibility not to discourage grant-seeking persons or groups to the point that they lose their initiative or drive. A little encouragement and assistance, when the going is rough, sometimes result in tremendous accomplishments. O ver encourage­ ment, on the other hand, is dangerous because it can make a grant-seeking group think that funding is certain. Every effort must be made to clarify the role of the staff in making a thorough exam ination of the proposal, and to explain the responsibility of the Distribution Committee and Board for critical evaluation and final decision.

The Hazard of Personnel Evaluation Rarely does the staff feel more ill at ease than when it deals with a proposal that turns almost entirely on the competence of one or two key persons. Unfortunately, the difference between success and failure often lies in a key person, and the difference between mediocrity and great success almost always is due to the quality of an individual. When the project staff is already on the scene, its ability has to be evaluated objectively. When a project is being newly established, the leadership of the respon­ sible board in selecting a good project director is crucial.

On occasion, when there was a strong need for a program, the foundation staff has recommended projects to the Board although it was less than enthusiastic about the staffing of the project.

The criterion of "capability of the organization and its personnel to achieve expected results" sometimes relies on an ultimate faith that the grantee board will increase its demands on the staff or, if things do not go right, will change personnel.

The Hazard of Personal Involvement It is accepted procedure for foundation board members not to vote on grants for organizations in which they are personally involved. But in the last analysis, it is really the integrity of the other Board members that is tested most severely, for they must not suspend their critical judgment of the merits of a proposal because a non-voting colleague probably favors it strongly.

Staff members share this hazard of personal involvement. M any times, in working with a

group which has a good idea — or which may have picked up an idea the staff member had — the foundation staff person becomes self­ identified with a project.T his seems to us a particularly difficult problem for a local foundation which necessarily has close ties with the agencies of its community. W ith the staff situation, as with that of the Board, this is a critical test of the other staff members who must be aware of problems involved, and maintain their forthrightness.

The Hazard of the Super-Planner The late W ilbur Bender, head of the Boston Permanent Charities Fund, in his great humility and wisdom, cautioned foundation staff and board members against thinking too highly of their ideas. Foundations must play an evaluative and critical role in their community; otherwise, they could not discriminate reasonably in allocating the scarce resources in their trust.

Yet, the fact that their decisions facilitate or inhibit the hopes of grant-seekers often leads to a deference toward foundations when their decisions are being evaluated. It is unreasonable to expect this deference not to flatter the foundation personnel.

Staff processes to promote critical review of one's own work, and the give and take of board review and decision, are procedural attempts to keep one’s own judgment in perspective. The criticisms in 1969 by congressmen and by newspapers surely have had a salutary effect, also. Frank comments by those who seek and receive grants have come forward more freely, and they too are welcomed.

Two Questions It would, perhaps, seem fatuous to continue a listing of "hazards''in the business of philan­ thropy. The process is not only difficult; it has raised many questions to which answers always seem inadequate. We would like to note two such questions.

One is: “Should foundations make grants to provide the local matching for Federal funds?”

Traditionally, foundations have focused on the private or voluntary agency working on a community problem. But in modern urban society, problems have become more complex and the needs have outgrown an approach which sharply distinguishes public and private, or governmental and non-governmental. As a m atter of fact, there are m any "private” agencies, profit making and non-profit, which affect "the public interest” and much governmental work is carried on by private agencies, both profitmaking and tax exempt.

This reflects the typical American triumph of practicality over dogma. M any private colleges spend more tax money than some state-supported schools. Just this year past, for example, the state agreed to subventions for the CW RU Medical School, and thus provided for a greater number of physicians in the years immediately at hand than an investment in a new state medical school would have provided.

Needless to say, not every "private” agency should respond to every governmental program simply because funds are available, any more than governmental funding should be provided for every private agency simply because someone

9

feels a need exists.The answer to whether a foundation should provide local matching funds must be: “It depends'.’

The criteria of merit and priority used for every grant seem quite appropriate for deciding whether foundation and Federal funds should be used together. If a project is within the field of interest of a foundation, and if it warrants funding, the availability of Federal funds may save foundation funds, or may make feasible projects which the foundation would like to pursue but could not, without additional assistance. Grants made in response to coercion are unhealthy, whether the coercion comes from public or private funds; but no one suffers when the grants are made to accomplish legitimate goals.

Another question that is often asked is, “Why do foundations always want to get something started, but resist grants to continue a good operation?’’ To the degree that this question is based on fact, the answer comes from the nature and function of a foundation.

It should be noted first that the implications of this question do not clearly fit a community foundation. Some donors give their funds for the on-going support of designated institutions.

W hat the community foundation form offers is a continuing review of the recipient organization, and, if circumstances demand, a re-assignment of funds to continue the purposes of the donor.

The Cleveland Foundation does manage such endowment support when it can help a donor.

Although there may be an exception to this rule, when funds are left for general charitable purposes, it seems unwise for foundations to

treat those funds as endowments. Community problems range so broadly, and community needs are so great, that even the largest founda­ tions could commit all their resources with no noticeable effect. Even if the funds were con­ centrated in a few areas, they would soon be absorbed into on-going commitments, and needs would appear just as large.

By resisting the endowment approach, however, foundations can offer flexibility, the possibility of experimentation and the feasibility of change to their communities. Any organization whose purpose falls within the foundations program can seek support to explore a new idea, and if it works out, can find the support which gives the recipient organization time to re-allocate its own resources or find new resources. In modern society, only a foundation can offer such opportunities for creative flexibility.

M oney which is not committed for continuing programs is extremely important to public and voluntary agencies alike. It permits school systems, colleges and universities, hospitals, citizen and neighborhood groups, welfare agencies or police departments to modify a practice first on a trial basis, and then, if desir­ able, permanently. It also permits an a d h o c expansion of activity so that the community can work on a task that can be completed and discontinued.

This function is very important in a community, and it is one that could be totally lost if founda­ tion policy did not resist pleas to provide permanent support.There may be good reasons for one year grants or five year grants, but the

policy of avoiding an endowment commitment seems sound.

The "Systems” Approach in Grant-Making Successes in space exploration and other technological fields have elevated "systems engineering” to a prestigious position. The technique aims at an overview that encompasses problem areas and all the linked variables of its environment. Resources and skills are “inputs;" results and products are "outputs'.'It becomes important then-to discuss the interactions of all the parts, and how feedbackJreports on results] helps the system adjust for better output.

"System s” and "feedback” concepts are useful among those who deal with social as well as technological problems. For foundation staffs, these concepts have im portant implications.

First, each person is encouraged to examine a problem in terms of a broader, linked "system ’.'

Thus, one would probably review a problem of a school as a "subsystem ” within the "educational system” of which schools, fam ily experiences, job opportunities and the like are also parts.

Attention would still center on the specific problem being considered, but the implications for other related parts of society, and the possibility of finding different levers for problem attack should be examined.

The provisions within a proposal for "feedback” are also noted. Basic questions are "How will you know the project is a success? How can you tell that it fails?” In most programs dealing with social problems, (except where they are part of a controlled experiment), it is wise to determine

whether provision has been made for continuing or intermittent reporting, and for readjusting the program to take account of the reports. Thus, an employment program might take note of successful and unsuccessful placements and provide for readjustments of methods when placements are not successful.

The “systems” concepts are useful also in a foundation’s own operations. A grant may affect the program directly funded, but it may also affect the environment (the system) in other ways. Continuing evaluation of the results of grants must go on, both in considering extension or renewal, and in suggesting new grants. Evalu­ ation must include review of all the statistics available, as well as the opinions of informed and concerned persons. This “feedback” is vital to good decision-making, and imperative for grant renewals.

Evaluation and Consultation Post-grant evaluation by staff for The Cleveland Foundation and the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation included on-site visits for over 25 percent of the funded programs during 1969.

These supplemented the regular reports requested with each “terms of grant” statement. In addi­ tion, outside consultants were provided to help many grant recipients make their own review.

Staff reports continued to be provided last year to distribution committees of other foundations, upon their request. These activities probably will increase under the new tax legislation.

The Cleveland Foundation Library also had a growing clientele among persons seeking grants.

The Internal Revenue Service reports (form 990-A)

from all Ohio foundations are on file and are made available as soon as they are received.

In 1969, when the Tax Reform Act was before Congress, special reports were prepared on the problems being considered. Two of the issues of C hallen ge an d R espon se, the periodical published by the foundations, received wide attention. The April, 1969 issue dealt with suggestions for regulating foundations; the other was a reprint of the May, 1968, issue reporting on questions that were considered by foundations in making a grant. Other issues in this series now covering three years, deal with the Summer Arts Festival, Community Agenda Seminars, and (in 1970) the effects of the Tax Reform Act. In 1970, many private foundations will probably want to become trusts within The Cleveland Foundation, a public charity. Since its inception, service to donors has been regarded as a necessary aspect of serving the community's philanthropic needs. Trusts managed by the banks, and funds disbursed by the Distribution Committee can help a donor serve his philanthropic goals and find his way through the complex requirements imposed by the new tax law. If staff services only are desired, they are available as one of the original purposes of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation.

These are times when many difficult decisions are required in philanthropic affairs. If The Cleveland Foundation or the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation can help, we are glad to do so.

Administration of Justice

STAFF REPORT

No problem is more central to the urban crisis than crime and the apparent inability of the criminal justice system to control it. The problem is not new. Take Cleveland 50 years ago. Then, as now, the crime rates were startling, and sweeping changes were demanded.

In 1921, The Cleveland Foundation responded by commissioning a searching analysis of the city's criminal justice system directed by Roscoe Pound and Felix Frankfurter. Included in this study, first published in 1922, were hundreds of recommendations for needed changes and improvements. The answers, how­ ever, were buried under tides of inertia, false economy and a half-hidden preference for vengeance over correction.

Forty-five years later, in 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Admin­ istration of Justice re-examined the problem in depth. Again, the best minds agreed on a strategy, supported by recommendations amazingly similar to those made in the 1921 Cleveland Foundation study.

But again the tides threaten. A year after the National Crime Commission's report was published, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (The Kerner Commission) cited inaction on the Crime Commission's recommendations as a m ajor reason for its own existence. One year after that, the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of

Violence (The Eisenhower Commission) said essentially the same thing.

The Cleveland Foundation and the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation recognize the value of these past efforts. In 1966, the Associated Foundation provided funds to the Cleveland Little Hoover Commission for an updated study of the Cleveland Police Department and, more recently, assisted the Department in the analysis of such specific procedures as: selection and recruitment; public relations; vehicle mainte­ nance and replacement; manpower allocation.

At the same time, however, the foundations determined that their efforts must include programs aimed at the implementation of what are by now well defined goals for the criminal justice system in Greater Cleveland.

W ith this objective in mind, the Associated Foundation in the m id-1960’s provided funds which enabled the Cleveland Police Department to send laboratory officers to Cleveland State University for further training, to train top staff officers at the Southern Police Institute and the University of California in Los Angeles, and to provide tuition costs for students in the Police Cadet Program of Cuyahoga Community College. M ore recently, Associated Foundation efforts led to the creation of the Administration of Justice Advisory Committee in O ctober of 1968, and to the award of more than $200,000 during the ensuing year by the Associated Foun­ dation, The Cleveland Foundation and The Ford Foundation for general support of the Committee. The three foundations again backed the Committee in 1969 with grants totaling over $250,000.

Administration of Justice Advisory Committee — Background and Review The Adm inistration of Justice Advisory Com ­ mittee was the initial step toward a community mechanism for bringing about much-needed, long-term coordination and change in the total Greater Cleveland administration of justice system. This eight-member civic committee was charged with the responsibilities of: 1. Undertaking research and experimental projects in the field of the administration of justice; 2. Providing consultant services and assistance, upon request, to the police, the courts, the correctional institutions, and other agencies within the administration of justice system; and, 3. Promoting community support for coordina­ tion of and changes in the system of justice in Greater Cleveland.

The Committee was provided with initial operating funds of $45,000 from a Ford Founda­ tion grant. Later,The Cleveland Foundation and the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation provided an additional operating grant of $45,000.

During its first year of operation, the Com ­ mittee undertook such substantive programs as the establishment of a totally revised police recruit and in-service training program for the Cleveland Police Department, the creation of newsletters for the Department, revision of the County Sheriff's entire booking system, and implementation of a comprehensive security program for the Cleveland M etropolitan Housing

Authority. In doing so, the Committee estab­ lished close working relationships with such public and private groups as the Cleveland Police Department, the Cleveland Public Safety and Law Department, and the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's O ffice, the Cleveland Municipal Court, the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, the Cleveland Bar Association, The Greater Cleveland Growth Association, Cuyahoga Com­ munity College, Case-Western Reserve University School of Law, and Kent State University.

The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council The Adm inistration of Justice Advisory Com­ mittee came more and more to recognize the serious breakdown in coordination and com m unication among various parts of the Greater Cleveland criminal justice system. This breakdown severely hampered efforts to make needed changes and improvements.

A mechanism was needed for coordination of existing procedures and the development and implementation of new programs. Such a mechanism existed in New York City where the Vera Institute of Justice and the Mayor's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council successfully instigates needed improvements.

The Committee was able to convince key public officials that Greater Cleveland needed such a coordinating mechanism. At a luncheon meeting called by M ayor Carl B. Stokes of Cleveland on June 26,1969, Justice Bernard Botein and two staff members of the Vera Institute described the New York operation to representatives of both the public and private sector concerned with the criminal justice system. A nine-member Task

Force was appointed to determine whether such a mechanism would be appropriate to Greater Cleveland and, if so, to recommend followthrough procedures. Staff assistance was provided by the Administration of Justice Advisory Committee.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council of Greater Cleveland The C JC C is an ongoing conference of key figures in the criminal justice system and other community leaders in Cuyahoga County. Its purpose is to provide better com m unication among the parts of the system —law enforcem ent, courts, corrections, etc. —and to serve as the vehicle for system-wide change and improvement.

The Council's presiding chairman is now the M ayor of Cleveland. Its associate chairmen are the Presiding Com missioner of Cuyahoga County and the past president of the Greater Cleveland Growth Association.

Forty members include judges, police officials, correctional authorities and a wide range of business, professional and academic leaders.

Program s undertaken by the C ouncil’s six operating com mittees are funded by foundation grants, contri­ butions from private industry and federal Omnibus Crim e C ontrol A ct funds.

Staff services to the Council and to its committees are provided by the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation's A dm inistration of Justice A dvisory Com ­ mittee. The AJAC's full-time staff is supported by grants from the Ford, Cleveland and Greater Cleveland Associated Foundations.

Crim inal Justice Planning Com m ittee

Law Enforcement Com m unications Committee

Drug Use and Abuse Com mittee

O ffender Rehabilitation Com mittee

Physical Facilities Com mittee

Public Education and Inform ation Committee

On July 23,1969, the Task Force recommended: that a Criminal Justice Coordinating Council be created of representatives from the criminal justice system and from the private sector of the community; that the Council be headed by the M ayor of Cleveland, the Presiding County Commissioner, and a representative of the Greater Cleveland Growth Association as associate chairmen; that the Administration of Justice Advisory Committee be asked to serve initially as an independent staffing agency to the Council; and that five initial council committees be created (Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Planning Committee, Public Education and Information Committee, Criminal Justice Facilities Committee, Drug and Drug Abuse Committee, and Law Enforcement Communica­ tions Committee).

The luncheon participants agreed to the recom­ mendations made by the Task Force, and the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council was established. The chairmen invited representatives of the public agencies and institutions and persons from the private sector to become members of the Council.

Once the Coordinating Committee had been created, the Administration of Justice Advisory Committee obtained funds for continued opera­ tion and for its new task of providing staff services to the Council. By December, of 1969, an additional two years' operating funds of $252,259 had been obtained from The Ford Foundation ($157,185) and from The Cleveland Foundation and the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation ($95,074). These funds

enabled the Committee to expand its staff from two to five members. The Committee then helped to establish four of the initial five designated Council Committees and to develop action programs.

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Planning Committee Because of its representative nature, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council became the vehicle for comprehensive county planning to obtain Federal funds under the Om nibus Crime Control A ct.T h e first Council committee formed, accordingly, was the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Planning Committee, chaired

by Mr. Harry H. Stone.

The Council entered into a planning contract with the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) which had been delegated planning responsibility for the seven-county area in N.E. Ohio by the State of Ohio. The Council's Planning Committee sought out the needs of the various agencies of the criminal justice system and, with the assistance of the Administration of Justice Committee staff and outside consultants, completed the 1970 Criminal Justice Plan for Cuyahoga County for inclusion into the N O A CA plan, which was in turn incorporated into the State plan.

The County plan called for 27 programs covering all aspects of the criminal justice system and requested nearly $1.25 million in federal funds. In March, the state announced tentative allocation of $2.2 million in federal action funds for the N OACA region.This meant that for

Cuyahoga County, all but $60,000 of the requested $1.25 million would be available for 1970.

Criminal Justice Facilities Committee Confronted with the conditions of city and county jails and of the area's crowded and dispersed court systems, as well as the need for additional police and sheriff's facilities, the Criminal Justice Facilities Committee recognized that the question was not whether improvement was necessary, but rather how it should come about. At the direction of Chairman H. Chapman Rose, president of the Cleveland Bar Association, staff visited D ayton, D etroit, Chicago, Minneap­ olis, Philadelphia and Washington, D .C ., where recent attacks were made on similar problems.

M ayor Stokes and the County Commissioners agreed with a committee recommendation and pledged $25,000 each to meet the expenses of a consultant, with an additional $7,000 to be paid by the Greater Cleveland Growth Association, for a total of $57,000. A request for matching funds of $57,000 was made under the Federal Omnibus Crime Control Act to correlate the consultants’ findings with architectural and construction funding.

Space Utilization Analysts (SUA) of Los Angeles was employed by the committee to recommend concrete solutions, and to provide a detailed list of rooms needed to accom m odate Cuyahoga C ounty’s criminal justice system until the year 2000 .

SUA’s work began on December 1 and is expected to be completed by early Spring.

Public Education and Information Committee This committee (chaired by A. A. Sommer, attorney), with cooperation by the Cleveland Police Department, has undertaken an auto theft prevention campaign as its first m ajor project. The program will involve greater coordi足 nation among the elements of the criminal justice system and an information campaign directed to both the general public and the schools.

Auto theft is a m ajor problem in Cuyahoga County, despite vigorous police efforts. About 72 cars a day are stolen in Cleveland alone.

The 1969 total was 22,279, a 100% increase in two years.

Research done for the committee, covering 15 cities and a number of nationally recognized authorities, showed some correlation between auto theft prevention campaigns and the auto theft rate. Thefts drop during campaigns and increase when they end. However, since no scientific research has ever been conducted into auto theft prevention, it was decided to include the first comprehensive research and evaluation ever done in this area in the Cleveland program.

A hard-hitting inform ation campaign has been aimed at the 200,000 high school and junior high school students in the county. Cooperating are the police departments, insurance companies, sports and entertainment personalities, and, in scheduling, the Federation of Women's Clubs.

A proposal has been submitted to the State of Ohio for $16,000 in Omnibus Crime Control

Act funds for a prototype inform ation program for the schools.

A m ajor share of this $200,000 program is expected to come from the insurance industry.

The Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation has made a grant of up to $35,000 to match, on a $1 for $3 basis, insurance industry contributions. Funds are also being sought from other sources.

Drug and Drug Abuse Committee The first project of this committee, chaired by attorney Charles F. Clarke, was a Drug Abuse Seminar in November, 1969. During this threeday conference (co-sponsored by the Cleveland Academy of Medicine) nationally-known experts briefed more than 500 secondary school teachers and counselors, judges, police officers and others directly concerned with the problem. A $15,000 Cleveland Foundation grant, partially reimbursed

by Federal Omnibus Crime Control Act funds, supported the conference and a subsequent educational campaign to disseminate its results.

Three areas of current concern are: efforts to determine the scope of the drug problem locally and to seek effective methods of dealing with it; to develop educational programs for young people, teachers, parents and personnel of the criminal justice system; and to create a mechanism for the treatment of the medical problems of young drug users who are alienated from the larger community, including its established medical facilities.

Prospect The Associated Foundation cannot continue indefinitely operating the Administration of

Justice Advisory Com m ittee. Foundation policy dictates against continuing operations for the same reasons it limits continuing grants. For that reason, we are looking for a way to continue the work of the Committee under other auspices.

The best prospect now is that the Administra足 tion of Justice Advisory Committee, which provides professional staff services, will be taken over by a consortium of universities and colleges.

Finding a permanent, non-foundation base for this function is a forem ost concern of foundation staff. We hope to make recommendations on this subject early in 1971.

Meanwhile, the crime rate continues to rise, but so does the determination of the Cleveland com m unity to come successfully to grips with the problem.

The Aged

STAFF REPORT

Cleveland has been one of the cities in the United States to pioneer in a number of services specifically for older persons. The Cleveland Foundation has helped initiate several programs which were later replicated in other cities. In the decade just ended, in the field of aging, the Foundation granted more than $300,000 for buildings and equipment, $600,000 for individuals (pensions, etc.), $526,000 for special programs, $444,600 for research, and $444,718 for support or expansion of programs.

In 1969, The Cleveland Foundation received the income from the J. Ambrose and Jessie Wheeler Purcell Fund, a new fund, one-half of which was designated for care for the elderly, which gave impetus to a closer look at programs for the aged in this community. As a result, the Foundations more than doubled the grants to programs for the aged — $341,022, as contrasted with $145,471 of 1968.

Included in the grant projects are new community service programs in which Cleveland pioneered.

The Foundation, in 1954, made a grant for support of the first Golden Age Center. Since that time, three Golden Age Centers in Cleve­ land— the Ernest J. Bohn, the Lucia J. Bing, and Riverview — have been supported by grants from The Cleveland Foundation.

The Cleveland Foundation gave initial and continuing support to the nursing home study project of the Welfare Federation, which has provided for the nation in-depth inform ation not

previously available on standards and practices in this field.

The Cleveland Homemaker Service was started in 1966 with a grant of $120,000 over a threeyear period to develop a program of home health aid and other home care services. M any elderly clients are served by this program.

In 1966 a grant was made for the development of the Senior Information Center of the Welfare Federation, which has provided referral infor­ mation for specific services to the elderly. This program is supported in part by Cuyahoga County and the City of Cleveland. An additional grant of $15,871 was made to this program by The Cleveland Foundation in December, 1969.

The Distribution Committee also approved a grant of $16,500 to support an effort by the Cleveland Society for the Blind to identify the needs of an estimated 12,000 older adults affected by varying degrees of sight impairment, who do not know where or how to get what is available.

Foundation money, carefully invested, has helped isolate and illuminate problem areas, showing where and how action may be profitable. The community, however, has not made a major financial commitment commensurate with the number of persons to be served and their problems.

Who Are the Aged?

All nationwide demographic projections agree that two segments of the population are going to continue to increase in proportion to the total population: young people, under 30 years of age; and the group 65 years or older. Between the years of 1960 and 1990 the group 65 years

or older in Cuyahoga County will have increased by about 50 percent. This means a total in 1990 of 225,550 persons over 65 in Cuyahoga County.

4. Coordinated personal assistance services (i.e., shopping, transportation, home care assistance);

A nother im portant statistic should not be over­ looked: an estimated increase of some 30 percent between 1970 and 1990 in the number of house­ holds headed by persons 65 and older.

6. Social relationships;

One compelling problem of the aged is measured not in years, but in dollars. Nationally, 75 percent of the aged are classified a s ‘'poor;'' that is, they have incomes under $1,600 per year. 30 percent of the aged couples are "p o o r;” their incomes are less than $2,100 per year. In Cleveland about 40 percent of the aged group 65-74 years, live on incomes below $2,000 and 55 percent below $3,000. O f those over 75 years, 70 percent live on less than $2,000 a year and 80 percent on less than $3,000.

Income assistance programs have been accepted as a public responsibility since 1936 and the establishment of the Social Security System.

For the many for whom Social Security is inadequate — and for whom no sufficient private incomes are available — Aid for the Aged pay­ ments are available. In spite of the fact that these payments amounted to approximately six million dollars in Cuyahoga County last year, there remained almost intolerable fiscal burdens for the aged poor. These are properly govern­ mental concerns.

O f the estimated 170,000 elderly persons in Cuyahoga County, approximately 4,200 are cared for in homes for the aged and nursing homes. Another 4,000 reside in public housing projects. The remaining 162,000 either head individual households or are cared for by their families or relatives.

The Needs The elderly and m ajor groups concerned with their welfare agree fundamentally on these primary needs for services: 1. Income assistance, including part-time employment; 2. Health care: general, outpatient, and home care; 3. Housing;

5. Accessibility of services and personal safety;

7. Custodial care and additional institutional and nursing home care.

Health care, a m ajor drain on the income of the aged, has been treated as a separate problem.

M edicare provides funds for patients over 65.

When the needs go beyond M edicare, and when the aged person qualifies for public assistance (in Ohio), a supplementary Medicaid program becomes operative. Persons with very low income who do not qualify for public assistance receive no assistance under this program in O hio, and are forced to turn to over-extended voluntary resources. Even then, for many individuals and families in this age group, the requirements so deplete their resources that they become public charges.

An almost equal problem in health care is the delivery system. In part, the aged share this

21

problem with the total population, but special inadequacies in outpatient treatment and medical home care are exacerbated by the lack of physi­ cians and nurses attracted to geriatrics and by physical facilities that pay little attention to the problems of the aged.

It is almost true that if income assistance for the aged were adequate, housing would not be a problem. However, housing means more than a roof or a warm, safe room. It is linked to the problem of social isolation, which is so devas­ tating to mental and social capabilities. The type and location of housing lessens or heightens the problems of shopping, recreation, health services and employment. Housing can make the life of the aged easier, or, if not properly designed and located, can increase the need for personal assistance.

These are examples of the problems which the aged identify for themselves —when they are asked. Interestingly enough, however, it is relatively unusual for governmental or voluntary programs to involve the aged in describing their own problems, or in devising solutions to them.

Almost none of the local boards of agencies serving the aged have an aged client on them.

Traditionally, modern society seeks to infantilize the aged, especially the aged poor. This patron­ izing approach often increases the problems that occur in the natural course of things. Retirement as many agencies define it, often deprives the community of talent and energy, and robs indi­ viduals of their purpose.

Involvement by the aged in assessing their own problems and in searching for solutions was an objective of foundation grants to The Older Persons Program of the Council for Economic Opportunity of Greater Cleveland. This program, supported last year by two Cleveland Founda­ tion grants totaling $122,164 and Federal matching funds of $131,106, ties in with func­ tioning community agencies with the primary aim of promoting independence and self help among the elderly. The goals of this program are best summarized as helping the aged to help

themselves, and to m aintain an active role in the civic and economic life of Greater Cleveland.

Directions for 1970 Funds from The Cleveland Foundation to help solve problems of the aged are certainly limited when measured against the needs which philan­ thropic dollars can reasonably be expected to meet.

Foundation philanthropy can do nothing signifi­ cant on the problem of incom e assistance except, possibly, in facilitating part-tim e employment.

Providing medical services is similarly proscribed, except for occasional support of a research project, or a dem onstration of how services might be made more accessible. For a foundation that does not wish to build housing, practical projects in this area are limited to encouraging the best planning, and to experimenting with social service techniques which can feasibly be replicated, or which can establish standards for general service areas.

As in most problem areas, Foundation grants in 1970 in the field of the aged should encourage the expansion of approaches which have demon­ strated value, and encourage finding new ones to crowd out those which have proven inade­ quate. O ur emphasis, therefore, must be on: 1. Helping agencies find optimum mix and use of public and private resources; 2. Encouraging projects which involve the aged in management and self-help; 3. Demonstrating new techniques and systems for extending services, with emphasis on inter­ agency cooperation beyond any combinations now operative; and 4. Continuing evaluation of results, assuming that no agency or program now in use is unalterably locked in, making sure that change, improvement and innovation are always possible.

Education —1969-70

STAFF REPORT

The whole field of education, from Headstart to Graduate School, came under intensive scrutiny and criticism during this past year. Education was beset by problems which were recognizable and numerous — and easy solutions proved to be elusive.

Disruptions of the educational process by students were of national concern, and the Greater Cleveland area was not exempt. The most often recurring themes of student dissent center on two words —"relevance” and "participation'.’

Students emphasize the need for relevance in an outdated curriculum and for teachers to face the facts of today’s life. For the black students, "relevance” also means the development of black studies courses and the hiring of more black teachers and professors. Students demanding "participation” want a decision-making voice in in matters directly related to them, from the choosing of a university president to the form a­ tion of a high school dress code. The students also want to exercise the rights of adult citizens, starting now to prepare for an active role in the mainstream of American 'life.

Another m ajor problem is the lack of adequate school financing. Voters are turning down a large number of levies and bond issues. Across the state in 1969, O hio voters defeated 61.7 percent of the bond issues submitted and 56 percent of new school levies. Although education still rates as a priority to most people, they seem increas­

ingly reluctant to approve tax increases or renewals. Many citizens apparently feel real estate taxes are as high as they can go, though these taxes are the primary means of support for Ohio public schools. In December, 1969, 10 school districts closed their doors for lack of funds and about 100 sought funds in special December elections. Central city areas in Ohio are particularly hard hit not only because school real estate taxes are piled on costly municipal demands, but also because of a declining tax base.

For example, the Cleveland public school system’s income was $3,000,000 less than anticipated.

The challenge of financing public and parochial schools is most crucial. In 1965, The Cleveland Foundation and the Greater Cleveland Asso­ ciated Foundation, together with other Ohio foundations, supported a project to evaluate elementary and secondary education aid to the state's public schools. M any of the recommenda­ tions the consultants’ made then are still valid.

Two such recommendations are (1) establishment of state foundation programs of specific amounts for each elementary and secondary pupil, and (2) adoption of a resource equalizer grant to assure that districts with average and below average valuation receive the same amount per pupil as the wealthier districts. Quality educa­ tion requires money. To approach true equality of educational opportunity, it is evident that the state must accept more fiscal responsibility. In 1966, Ohio ranked forty-third in the percentage of dollar support for education; today the state ranks forty-ninth.These factors underscore the need for re-evaluation of the state school founda­ tion program and action on state tax reform.

Demand for Citizen Participation W hile voters in general were concerned about rising real estate taxes, and our younger citizens about relevance and participation, the urban citizen, more than his rural or suburban neighbor, was demanding increased citizen participation in running the schools. The demand for com ­ munity control and decentralization was repetitive in almost every m ajor city. The Cleve­ land Public Schools proposed a community relations program, but it was rejected by citizens who felt they had not had an opportunity to participate adequately in planning it. The schools are still looking for more meaningful community engagement in public education.

The Foundation’s examination of important educational issues in 1969 has resulted in grant programs which cover a wide range, including curriculum development, building programs and demonstration projects such as the “Street Academies” dealing with “dropouts;” specific programs to develop educational leadership and to promote increased citizen participation.

Curriculum, an area in which little systematic and relevant work has been done, received priority attention from the Cleveland Board of Education and the foundations responded in a like manner. A matching grant of $23,000 was made to the Cleveland Board of Education to help facilitate the work of its Curriculum Review Com m ittee.This Committee evaluated the cur­ riculum of Cleveland’s elementary schools and at a later date, will assess the program of second­ ary schools. The recommendations following this evaluation have lead the Cleveland school systems to begin work on a new system for

curriculum development and implementation in the elementary schools.

Other grants in 1969 for programs of the Cleve­ land Board of Education include $137,000 for the implementation of a new department of Family Life Education and $9,960 for training and leadership development of school admin­ istrators. A total of $184,960 was granted for programs for the Cleveland public schools and indicates the intent of the foundations to assist the Cleveland schools to meet today's challenges of urban education.

W hile attention was being focused on curriculum reform, the dropout rate in the Cleveland schools had risen from 12.4 percent in school year 1967-68, to 13.9 percent in 1968-69, while the overall dropout rate for the state is six percent according to the State Board of Education.

Although the Cleveland schools were able to reach some of those who had dropped out through its extension high school, Adult Educa­ tion Center and work-study programs (3.5 percent of the school leavers), m any young people were still lost to the educational process.

The Foundation staff, recognizing the importance of keeping youngsters in school or helping them return, worked closely with the Urban League of Cleveland in the development of a special program for dropouts. The program will include “Street Academ ies” in neighborhood storefronts with workers to recruit dropouts and give them personal attention, an academy of "transition” to provide students with more traditional courses and prepare them for prep school and gradua­ tion from prep school to lead to college entrance.

Two other local foundations (The George Gund

Foundation and The M artha Holden Jennings Foundation) participated in the funding of this experimental program .The goal is to help some young people and to devise ways which the schools can use to bring more young people into the educational process in an environment in which they can be successful.

The need is great for a plan to help the community understand the schools' educational objectives, to take part in drafting and to support these objectives, to provide an effective channel for citizens to be heard and, most im portant, to assume some accountability for student attain­ ment. Responsibility for the success or failure in learning does not belong totally to the learner; more of the burden must be assumed by teacher, school and home. The educational experience must be made more intellectually, em otionally and socially relevant to the main currents of a child's life. Increased citizen participation does not in and of itself deal with these factors, but it may provide the best organized vehicle to raise them to program status.

The age-old controversy over institutions which produce our teachers and administrators is now more heated than ever. As a result, foundations are going to be asked to help develop schools of education as graduate schools and as research centers. Schools of education at the same time will seek more effective relationships with school systems and local communities. The needs of schools of education do not, however, preclude consideration of other problem aspects of the universities which include academic reform, research, and making higher education more accessible to minority students.

Research of policy import in education has received too little attention in the past. All of us have preferred action to inquiry, a good tendency which can be self-defeating. The complexity of the educational process in schools is often over­ simplified. This was demonstrated in a study by Dr. Elyse S. Fleming and Dr. Ralph G. Antonnen of Case Western Reserve University, funded by The Cleveland Foundation, which dealt with the relationship between ability group tests given their students and the expectancy level of teachers. Popular beliefs had indicated that high test scores increased the expectancy level of teachers and the students consequently tended to make significant progress. The study reported that the way in which teachers influenced pupil behavior is a far more subtle and complex phe­ nomenon than was generally believed. Teachers are not so much influenced by a pupil’s test results, but tend rather to assess him on the basis of previously developed attitudes and experiences with the individual student. Studies such as this suggest that more basic research might be very profitable for school systems.

Solutions to the many problems of education still seem elusive. M uch more effective attention, coupled with sufficient resource allocation, is still needed to achieve quality and equality of education. The development of relevant cur­ riculum, new approaches to the selection and training of educational personnel and a thorough look at early childhood education, will continue to present opportunities for foundations in 1970.

Cultural Affairs

STAFF REPORT

Prospects for Cultural Affairs in the 1970’s might seem, at first glance, pessim istic.The Musical Arts A ssociation is trying to meet a million dollar deficit, its financial liquidity almost totally gone. And the Summer Arts Festival, which had such tremendous promise, is seriously curtailed.

This is a story in which our experience parallels that of the country It is not, of course, a balanced story. An encouraging sign is the successful involvement of young persons in cultural activi­ ties. The Hawken School Arts Festival, the PACE Summer School for the Arts, the Cleveland Schools Summer Program in the Arts, the Sup­ plementary Center programs in music and visual arts, the exciting workshops of the Summer Arts Festival, the Karamu music and dramatic pro­ grams and workshops, the West Side Arts Program, and the continuing work of the Music School Settlement in some areas are examples that enliven the picture of the year just past.

Experience of the past few years forcefully reminds us that thoughtful planning is a neces­ sity for rewarding foundation grants in Cultural Affairs. A survey completed by one of our summer interns identified over 200 formally organized groups with some type of arts pro­ gram. The energy and interests of these groups represent important community resources.

M ost Cleveland Foundation grants for cultural activities are from The George C. and M arion S. Gordon Fund. In 1964 when the Fund was estab­ lished, a preliminary decision was made by the Distribution Committee on the advice of friends

of Mrs. Gordon to make a five-year commitment to the Cleveland Orchestra ($50,000 a year), the Cleveland Institute of Music ($20,000 a year), and the Music School Settlement ($10,000 a year).

This is the year to review these allocations.

In addition, over the years, the Musical Arts Association has received from the Gordon Fund $40,000 a year for five years (to be completed in 1971) toward the cost of Blossom Center, and the Cleveland Institute of Music received $75,000 to assist in its joint program with Case Western Reserve University. The Music School Settlement received a grant of $20,000 from Convers, Goodman, and Raible funds for reha­ bilitation of some properties which were acquired.

For two years, $50,000 a year was granted to the Summer Arts Festival from unrestricted and child care funds. The Distribution Committee also has made grants to the Cleveland Board of Education for special services by the Cleveland Orchestra, to assist the Parma Civic Symphony, and the Cleveland Philharmonic, for the Chamber Music Society, for Karamu House and the Lake­ wood Shakespearian Festivals, among others.

The successes of many of these grants seem to provide ample incentive for broad investments to help launch programs when opportunities arise.

Any proposal that would lead to a system for infusing fiscal strength into cultural institutions would be a matter of highest priority, but no one seems to have the key to that puzzle.

Proposal: A Greater Cleveland Arts Council M etropolitan arts councils are important in the public-voluntary mechanism for fostering cultural activities which includes state arts councils and

the N ational Foundation for the Arts. Local councils have been well developed and utilized in several m etropolitan areas and seem to have potential for achieving the following goals: 1. Focusing public concerns for all the arts.

2. Planning and coordinating (com m unications) agency for cultural affairs.

3. A ttracting public funds allocated through the national and state arts councils, and providing a point of coordination for their programs.

4. Helping needed new projects to get started.

5. Encouraging voluntary support for the arts.

It seems particularly appropriate for leaders in the com m unity to consider re-establishing an Arts Council. Membership of a new Greater Cleveland Arts Council would need to be carefully chosen to guarantee broad representation. The council also should make special efforts to find a very able executive ambitious to make his reputation.

The budget for this operation should be approxi­ mately $45-50,000 a year with special projects funded through special grants.

Strong arguments have been made for estab­ lishment of a Greater Cleveland Arts Council.

President Nixon appealed to Congress on behalf of the National Arts Foundation. In all proba­ bility, even more public funds will be required before 1980 if the great cultural organizations are to be continued. As these funds become available, demands will be made on them for many popular projects of dubious distinction.

If a metropolitan arts council can, by its work, make cultural quality the concern of a broader public, the allocation of public funds may be much more effective.

Proposal: Regional Opera The problems of the Lake Erie O pera Company this past year have prompted numerous sugges­ tions for regional opera that might better match fiscal and talent resources with audience interest.

One suggestion is to establish a new profes­ sional opera company, supported by contributions from all of northeastern Ohio. We have been approached by both the Columbus Foundation and the Richland County Foundation (Mansfield) and have talked with the principals (a conductor and lyric tenor) who are providing leadership in this project.

A more modest suggestion calls for an annual "Student Opera Festival” during which students of the Cleveland Institute of Music, Oberlin College Music School, and the Kent State Music School would present one or two operas. Such an enterprise might be arranged by a metropoli­ tan arts council or by the schools acting in concert. An obvious advantage of student opera is that audience expectations would be in line with what could be delivered. In addition, local talent would have greater access to an audience than at present, and the experimentation needed for a creative opera tradition could be carried on with less cost than in a professional setting.

The Start of a New Decade

It would be presumptuous to use the opening of a new decade to try to predict the future and the foundations'responses to what will come. At the same time, it would be foolish not to review the decade just ended as a base for planning the current year.

Paul Ylvisaker, when he was director of the public affairs division of the Ford Foundation, described the concept of "social jiu-jitsu” which recognized the importance of philanthropy's trying to help guide onrushing trends as con­ trasted to trying to provide the driving force for society or m ajor changes in direction. To be most effective, philanthropy must recognize factual trends in social movement instead of being over­ whelmed by rhetoric or the exigencies of the moment.

The story of the 1960's is perhaps best under­ stood as a paradox. Substantial progress against social ills was made amid tensions that threatened to destroy the very attitudes that made progress possible. Racism and its effects, and poverty and its destructiveness shared priority among the concerns of the past decade.The under­ standable impatience of the blacks and the young who believe in our nations greatest hopes, and the fears of many who see their own successes and hopes being eroded by inflation or impla­ cable change, obscure the successes that may permit historians of some future time to call the sixties a period of progress.

Neither our impatience nor a short memory should obscure the fact that our economy has been growing in absolute terms as well as in terms of inflated dollars. Further, the percentage

of the population with incomes below the poverty level is going down, not up.

1960 1965 1968

People in Poverty (millions)

Percent in Poverty

40 33 25

22.21 17.31 12.81

W hile individual programs to help the poor increase their stake in society may have successes and failures, the overall governmental and eco­ nomic system is working toward our national goals. To plan best for improvements, each program deserves critical scrutiny with an honest facing of the facts. One such fact is that there are successes.

Not only are many of the poor moving out of poverty, but blacks, too, are moving slowly toward greater incomes compared to whites.

Great care will need to be exercised as attempts are made to decrease inflationary pressures so that this trend is not slowed or reversed.

One favorable trend on which we must build is the relative improvement in educational achieve­ ment for black Americans. Appropriate questions must be asked about the quality of schooling for non-whites, but the following chart shows both the general aspiration for education common to black and white Am ericans and a substantial closing of what was a tragic gap.

Median Years of School Completed for Persons 2 5 to 2 9 Years Old, by Sex in U.S. Metropolitan Areas Central Cities

Suburban Rings

1960

1968

1960

1968

Males White Black

12.6 11.3

12.7 12.3

12.5 11.1

12.7 12.4

Females White Black

12.4 11.5

12.5 12.2

12.4 9.9

12.6 12.3

The American family has traditionally been a base for social, educational, and economic devel­ opment. Like other institutions, the family suffers from the privations of poverty and prejudice. The next chart, however, challenges a simple concept of family instability often used to the disadvantage of Negroes.

actual numbers, the counties surrounding Cuyahoga are expected to grow faster in the next two decades. While there is no likelihood that the central cities and older metropolitan counties will not be the greatest centers of power and problems, regionalization of the labor force, industrial and tax base, and the megalopolis continues to develop.

Population Trends • • • Cuyahoga County D , ,.

Population (millions)

-

Cleveland

H K B Suburban Counties

2.0 1.8

1.6

Percent Children U nder 1 8 Years Old Living With Both Parents in U .S. M etropolitan A reas Family Income Under $4,000 $4,000 to $5,999 $6,000 to $7,999 $8,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 and over

Total

White

Black

36 74 89 93 95 96

51 78 91 94 96 97

24 67 80 89 93 95

In the search for better housing, better schooling, and greater personal safety, white and black Americans have moved in increasing numbers to suburban areas. The central city population is becoming a smaller part of the total m etropolitan area. The following graph diagrams this for Cuyahoga County and the City of Cleveland. It should also be noted that in percentage and in

1910

1930

1950

D ata — Regional Planning Commission

1970

1990

Social Environment The tensions that limited our successes in the Sixties included conscription for an unpopular war, inflation, recognized but continuing in­ justices, and an erosion of confidence in the ability and desire of some of our institutions and our leaders to meet these challenges. It would be heartening to believe that in the Seventies, by the two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the nation will reaffirm its goals, re-establish ways for groups to work together, and determinedly move toward opening to every person opportunities for full develop­ ment. This would not mean a radical change in goals or structure from those of the past few years; many programs have helped move our nation toward goals far from fulfilled. But it would demand recognizing and articulating again the respect for each person and institution that Americans have claimed as their tradition.

A new mood exists in the community emphasiz­ ing an old dimension of our concerns. The change, the dissent, and the new rhetoric have brought reaction. The attention to new programs for black citizens has raised the question as to whether the problems of other groups were being ignored. Historically they have not been, but it is time again to re-examine the situation. How does "Black power” equate with the nationality ties of Cleveland's ethnic societies that have been so powerful from time to time in our history?

Do today's circumstances suggest the need for a new recognition of "Irish power” or "Polish power”? Do the ties of these ethnic (racial) groups serve to help individuals and groups in their personal achievement? Do they serve to establish a feeling of self-respect, of belonging, that strengthens our pluralistic society? Do they make it easier for people to cooperate? O r do they increase inter-group tensions and frictions?

The many questions about the impact of ethnicity in today’s society should be faced as frankly as questions of race, and not ignored in planning.

Other Environmental Problems A new focus of activity, which deserves special

recognition in 1970, is on the quality of physical environment. For us who live around Lake Erie this is not a new concern. In the 1950’s The Cleveland Foundation made its first grants to the Lake Erie Watershed Conservation Founda­ tion for studies of water problems in the sixcounty area. In 1964, the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation and The Cleveland Foundation made grants to a restructured Lake Erie Watershed Conservation Foundation to help it begin a m ajor reorganization for research and operational activities.The Three Rivers Watershed District was an outcome of that grant. Last year we made a grant to Case Western Reserve University and the City of Cleveland for a research project to isolate exotic pollutants from water.

Today the attention of the public centers on air, water, noise, and other types of environmental pollution. Much needs to be learned if the action of interested groups is to be constructive. We will cooperate in 1970 with other foundations and groups so that the im portant problems in this area can be given intelligent attention.

In 1963, the A s so c ia te d F ou n d ation stated its g o a l as help in g to d e v e lo p "an u rban society in w h ich ea ch p erson can reach his fu llest potential, m a k e the g reatest p o ssib le con tribu tion , and receiv e in fu ll the rew ard s o f his participation'.'

This led to gran t p rog ra m s b y b o th fou ndation s in ed u catio n , e m p lo y m en t opportu n ities, race relation s, hou sing, lead ersh ip d ev elop m en t, and f o r o th e r civic affairs. T h ese b r o a d areas will con tin u e to b e m a jo r con cern s as the com m unity bu ilds on w h a t has been learn ed an d as new talents are b rou g h t into leadin g roles.

The Cleveland Foundation Annual Report for 1969

34

The Cleveland Foundation

The Foundation's fifty-sixth year of philanthropic service to Greater Cleveland was one of sub­ stantial growth. The book value of The Cleveland Foundation's capital increased about $7.5 million and totaled $80,818,076 as of December 31, 1969. M arket value of these assets was nearly $112 million. Certain of these trusts currently provide only partial, but eventually will provide complete benefit to The Cleveland Foundation.

During 1969, a total of $7,609,372 was received from 135 donors as new gifts to principal. Upon authorization of the Distribution Committee $5,744,775 was disbursed for a wide range of community needs and activities. This amount includes funds provided for grants by the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation.

A list of various funds which constitute The Cleveland Foundation’s endowment as well as a detailed accounting of the grants made, is set forth later in this Report.

Nine New Trusts Established The following new funds became effective in 1969: Marie Louise Gollan Fund — This fund was established with a gift of $50,000 under a trust agreement executed by the late Mrs. Gollan. Income is designated for support of the Central Volunteer Bureau at the Cleveland Welfare Federation.

Tillie A. Kaley and Warren R. Kaley Memorial Fund — Created under a trust agreement by the late W arren Kaley, this fund has a value of $400,334 with income to be used one-third for the Lutheran Home for the Aged, one-third for services to needy elderly people and one-third for services to needy children, including the mentally retarded and em otionally disturbed.

The J. Ambrose and Jessie Wheeler Purcell Memorial Fund — This fund with a value of $4,727,166 was estab­ lished under a trust agreement by the late Jessie Wheeler Purcell. Income is to be used for assistance to needy, aged persons and for sick, crippled or needy children including their education.

The Aloy Memorial Scholarship Fund — Created with a $14,932 bequest from the late Mildred J. Ruskin, this fund will provide scholarships for needy and deserving students at M ather College of Case Western Reserve University.

William Curtis M orton, Maud M orton, Kathleen M orton Fund — This fund with a value of $1,013,000 was created under the will of the late W illiam C. M orton and his two sisters. Income is designated in varying amounts for the Medical School of Case Western Reserve University for research in eye diseases, to the Cleveland Clinic for similar purposes, to the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Musical Arts A ssociation, the Natural Science Museum and for scholarships at Case Western Reserve University.

Frank E. Shepardson Fund — This unrestricted fund with a value of $160,000 was created under the will of the late Frank Shepardson.

Henrietta Teufel Memorial Fund — Under the will of the late Miss Teufel this $700,000 fund was established with income to be used for medical research.

Ida Beznoska Fund — With a value of $127,090 this unrestricted fund was created under the will of the late Mrs. Beznoska.

Mildred E. Hommel and Arthur G. Hommel Memorial Fund — This fund with a value of $196,523 was estab­ lished under the will of the late Mildred Hommel.

Income is to be used for educational purposes.

Additions to Existing Funds The Fisher Fund was increased by $87,500 through a bequest from the late Bertha C. Fisher.

The C lev ela n d R ecreatio n a l A rts Fund was increased by $2,895 through gifts from The Raymond John Wean Foundation, The Louis E. and M arcia M. Emsheimer Charitable Trust and from gifts made by the following contri­ butors in memory of W alter L. Seelbach: Mr. and Mrs. A. D. Barczak, Mr. and Mrs. F. W. M ilbourn, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. H. McKnight Emerson, Mrs. Charlotte M. Hays, Laurel School Student Activities, Peat, M arwick, Mitchell and Com pany,The G. and C. Foundry Company, Mrs. J. B. M oore, Mr. and Mrs. J. L. Mercer, Mr. and Mrs. T. T. Lloyd, Mr. and Mrs. R. Jaite, Mrs. I. W. Distel, Mrs. W illiam R. Jack, Golden Foundry Company —Division of Woodward Company, Messrs. T. J. Frank, Roger Hageboeck, John T. Hageboeck, Harry Frank, Donald M cDonald, W illiam C. Bell, Kankakee Foundry Company, Donald H. Workman, Gray and Ductile Iron Founders’ Society, Mr. and Mrs. C. L. Nash and Family, O hio Stove Company — Gray Iron Casting Division, American Colloid Company, Chambers, Bering, Quilan Company, H. C. M acaulay Foundry Company, Mr. and Mrs. Byron Dalton, Mr. and Mrs. James G. May, American Foundrymen's Society, Grede Foundation, Inc., Mr. and Mrs. R. G. Wieland, Mrs. W illiam M. Folberth, Renfrow Foundry, Mid-America Chapter — American Society of Travel Agents, J.W . Hemphill Agency (employees), Cleveland Home and Flower Show, Mrs. R. H. Narrigan, Mr. J. H. Gardner, Mrs. J. E. Franz for the Franz

family, Miss Am y E. Miller, Midwest Foundry C om pany General Foundry and M anufacturing C om pany Mrs. Cyril C. James, M rs. John M ansell, Mrs. George Barbieri, Mrs. William Gooding, Mrs. Robert Hine, Mrs. Alex Teyral, M rs. J. I. Leimgruber, M rs. Daniel M . Wertman, M rs. Norma Jaynes, Mrs. M olly Mercer, Mrs. Harriet Heyl, Mrs. Florette Vaughn, Mrs. Janet Brooke, M rs. Kay Rhodehamel, Mr. and Mrs. Kurt L. Seelbach, Henry Trenkamp, Jr., Miss Helen R. Hines, Mr. and Mrs. E. E. Lehmann, Mr. and Mrs. Louis E. Lehmann, Mr. and Mrs. John E. Butler, Sibley M achine and Foundry Corporation, George W. Cannon Family, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Krebs, Mrs. Else B. Gerstenberger, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Fosnaugh with Becky, Mr. and Mrs. A. D. Simmons, Great Lakes Founders and M achine Corporation, Gray Iron Founders' Association, Mrs. William H. Crangle, Forest City Foundries Company.

"N on-trust" gifts were received from the following donors who expressed the desire that the corpus of their gifts be used for specific purposes.

A gift of $15,000 was received from the E lizabeth R ieley A rm in gton Trust for the education of children in the same manner as set forth in the Charles Rieley Armington Fund; the D on ald A. an d Jan e C. S tark S ch olarsh ip Fund received an additional contribution of $1 2 , 0 0 0 from the Donald A. and Jane C. Stark Charitable Trust; a contribution of $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 earmarked for the Goodwill Industries Building Fund was received from T he G eorg e an d M ay M argaret A n gell Trust.

Memorial Gifts and The Combined Fund The Combined Fund (so-called because contri足 butions are combined for investment purposes) was increased by $82,932 in new gifts and additions to existing funds in 1969.

T he F red erick R. an d B ertha S pech t Mautz S ch o la rsh ip Fund for scholarships at Capital University was increased by a $3,000 gift from Dr. Mautz. Dr. Yurick again contributed to the fund which he established some years ago.

T he A d e le C orn in g C h ish o lm M em orial received an additional gift of $500 from the Alvah S. and Adele C. Chisholm Memorial Foundation.

The Jo sep h E. K ew ley M em orial Fund was established by M rs. Florence H. Kewley with a gift of about $10,000. Mr. an d Mrs. R ob ert S. L atham added $100 to the fund previously estab足 lished in their names. T he W illiam Fred M ackay an d C o ra C arlisle M a c k a y M em orial Fund was created by a $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 gift from a trust established by W illiam F. Mackay. Income is to be used for indigent aged persons. A gift was received from Dr. and Mrs. C. W. W yckoff in memory of C h risto p h er Bruce N arten.

The Jo h n F. O berlin an d Jo h n C. O berlin Fund for law scholarships at Case Western Reserve University was increased by a gift of $11,219 from John F. Oberlin.

A gift to the W in ifred F ryer M em orial Fund in memory of Mrs. M innie Haber was received from Mrs. Sidney S. Scheibel and the Robert L. and Lois M. Hays Foundation made a contribution in memory of F loren ce Jon es. The T h om as M.

37

K irby M em orial Fund was created by a $2,000 bequest under the will of the late Anne C. Kirby in memory of her brother. A contribution to The G race E. M ey ette Fund was received from Miss Margaret Willis. A gift was received from R ay E. M unn and the Albert M. Higley Foundation made a contribution of $100 in memory of Joh n P. M urphy. The Warner Seely Fund with income designated for the Cleveland Health Museum was created with a $35,000 gift from a trust established by the late Warner Seely A gift of $500 in honor of Frances VJ. an d Jo h n S herw in was received from Mrs. Edwin R. M otch.T h e Kelvin and Eleanor Smith Foundation made an additional gift of $2 , 0 0 0 to the S ocial W ork S ch olarsh ip Fund and contributions totaling $90 for the Jessie C. T ucker M em orial Fund were received from the following persons: Dr. Rodolfo Cardona, Miss Ann Gorog, Stefan Leweny and Mrs. Louise T. Sutton. A gift to the M arjorie A. W inbigler M em orial Fund was received from Miss Dorothy H. Fleak.

i

An addition of $7,293 to the H erb ert E. an d Eleanor M. Z dara M em orial Fund was made under the will of the late Eleanor M. Zdara, and an additional gift of $1 , 0 0 0 was made to the R h od a L. A ffe ld e r Fund by Mr. and Mrs. Lewis J. Affelder.

Summary of Income Cash Receipts and Disbursements by Purpose The Cleveland Foundation Year ended December 31,1969 (Su m m a riz ed from R ep o rt o f E x a m in a tio n by Ernst & Ernst, C ertified P u b lic A cco u n ta n ts , fu ll r e p o r t b e i n g a v a i l a b l e f o r i n s p e c t i o n . )

$1,167,588.96

Balances —January 1,1969 Cash Receipts By trustee banks — principally dividends and interest

By The Cleveland Foundation — miscellaneous Transfers — from principal — net

$5,379,735.14 531.92 776,169.72* 6,156,436.78 7,324,025.74

Cash Disbursements Authorized by trustee banks: Trustee fees Bond premium and real estate am ortization — net

$ 126,579.68 201,343.18

Authorized by The Cleveland Foundation Committee and the Distribution Committee: For charitable and educational purposes: Education Cultural affairs Health and Welfare Civic affairs Special philanthropic services Greater Cleveland Association Foundation

327,922.86

948,379.44 549,411.44 2,490,449.78 944,543.57 152,441.50 659,549.67 5,744,775.40

Amount paid to Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation for administrative expenses Balances — December 31,1969

92,126.44 5,836,901.84 6,164,824.70 $1,159,201.04

‘ In clu d e s $ 7 8 0 ,7 4 8 .5 3 fro m p rin cip a l and $ 4 ,5 7 8 .8 1 to p rin cip al. ‘ ‘ C o m p o se d o f fund b a la n ce s o f $ 1 ,1 5 9 ,2 0 1 .0 4 w h ich to g e th er w ith fu tu re in co m e , is en cu m b ered in th e to ta l a m o u n t o f $ 2 ,5 2 8 ,2 1 8 .4 1 due to grants m ade p r io r to D ec em b e r 3 1 ,1 9 6 9 , and s u b se q u en tly p a y a b le .

^

lrust Fund Assets

Endowment of the Foundation with principal value of the funds held by the Trustee Banks at book or carrying value as of December 31, 1969.

The Aloy M emorial Scholarship Fund Anisfield-Wolf Fund Charles Rieley Armington Fund Walter C. and Lucy I. Astrup Fund Sophie Auerbach Fund The Frederic M. and Nettie E. Backus Memorial Fund Walter C. and Fannie W hite Baker Fund Lilian Hanna Baldwin Fund Cornelia W. Beardslee Fund James C. Beardslee Fund Mary Berryman Fund Ida Beznoska Fund The Dr. Hamilton Fisk Biggar Fund George Davis Bivin Fund Katherine Bohm Fund Roberta Holden Bole Fund The George H. Boyd Fund Alva Bradley II Fund Gertrude H. Britton, Katharine H. Perkins Fund Fannie Brown M emorial Fund George F. Buehler M emorial Fund Thomas Burnham M emorial Fund Katherine Ward Burrell Fund The Martha B. Carlisle Memorial Fund The Central High School Endowment Fund The Fred H. Chapin M emorial Fund

$

14,932 99,427 16,100 135,812 170,403*

2,330,784 9,938 8,037 101,856 873,455 15,716 124,963 93,774 192,595* 7,356 173,472 2,292,825* 679,237 24,461 137,665 149,047 148,766 6,896 66,329 5,071 2,955,079

The Frank J. and Nellie L. Chappie Fund 432,124’ 198,361 George W. Chisholm Fund 6.458 J. E. G. Clark Trust 20,321 The Elsa Claus Memorial Fund No. 2 178,553 Cleveland Recreational Arts Fund 67,048 Caroline E. Coit Fund 6,423,026* A. E. Convers Fund 965,557* Harry Coulby Fund No. 2 6,596,265 Harry Coulby Fund No. 4 111,583 Jacob D. Cox Fund 73,072* S. Houghton Cox Fund Henry G. Dalton Fund Alice McHardy Dye Fund Dr. Frank Carl Felix and Flora Webster Felix Fund First Cleveland Cavalry —Norton Memorial Fund William C. Fischer and LillyeT. Fischer Memorial Fund Fisher Fund Erwin L. Fisher and Fanny M. Fisher M emorial Fund Edward C. Flanigon Fund Constance C. Frackelton Fund No. 1 Constance C. Frackelton Fund No. 6 Constance C. Frackelton Fund No. 7 Constance C. Frackelton Fund No. 8 The Fannie Pitcairn Frackelton and David W. Frackelton Fund Robert J. Frackelton Fund The George Freeman Charity Fund Frederic H. Gates Fund The William F. and Anna Lawrence Gibbons Fund William A. Giffhorn Fund

668,454 407,498 323,375 89,132 96,381 110,390 479,844 47,894 206,721 228,590 98,940 29,653 19,978 20,248 48,588 283,207 497,326* 2.458

Frederick Harris Goff Fund M arie Louise Gollan Fund Julius E. Goodman Fund The George C. and M arion S. Gordon Fund Robert B. Grandin Fund The Eugene S. and Blanche R. Halle Memorial Fund Edwin T. and M ary E. Hamilton Fund The Lynn J. and Eva D. Hammond M emorial Fund Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Associated Foundation Trust Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Cleveland Foundation Special Purpose Fund Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Fund for Community Chest Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Community Development Fund Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Fund for United Appeal Perry G. Harrison and Virginia C. Harrison Memorial Fund The Kate Hanna Harvey M emorial Fund Melville H. Haskell, M ary H. Hunter, Gertrude H. Britton, Katherine H. Perkins Trust George Halle Hays Fund Kaufman Hays Memorial Fund The Hiram House Fund The Jacob Hirtenstein Fund The H. Morley Hitchcock Fund Mildred E. Hommel and Arthur G. Hommel Memorial Fund

49,712 47,908 559,194 3,812,636 435,338 1,563,719 1,178,191 1,574,791* 1,548,770 1,114,506 302,697 6,014,082 248,179 r/on TOO 789,383 53,084

120,951 9,831 9,172 9,006 5,771 99,457 207,013

Centureena S. Hotchkiss Fund The A .W . Hurlbut Fund Sherman Johnson M emorial Fund Caroline Bonnell Jones Fund James S. Jordan Fund Adrian D. Joyce Fund The Frederick W. and Henryett Slocum Judd Fund Isaac Theodore Kahn Fund Tillie A. Kaley and Warren R. Kaley M emorial Fund Karamu House Trust Clarence A. Kirkham M emorial Fund John R. Kistner Fund The O tto and Lena Konigslow M emorial Fund Elroy J. and Fynette H. Kulas Fund Robert M. Linney Fund Ella L. Lowman Fund Henry M. Lucas Fund Clemens W. Lundoff and Hilda T. Lundoff Fund Frank J. Lynch Fund Nellie Lynch Fund Theresa Mae M acN ab Fund Alice Keith M ather Fund The Lewis A. and Ellen E. M cCreary M emorial Fund The George W. and Sarah M cGuire Fund The Katherine B. M cKitterick Fund The Thom as and M ary M cM yler M emorial Fund

82,849 23,598 158,930 4,477 15,822 64,111 570,993 839,398 400,146 1,176,489 204,013 24,043 1,858,219* 604,851 179,561* 1 ,0 1 2

79,888 321,955 25,791* 142,682 79,845 125,107 12,157 34,885 98,832 88,059

The Albert Younglove M eriam and Kathryn A. Meriam Fund Alice Butts M etcalf Fund Anna B. Minzer Fund Cornelia S. M oore Fund William Curtis M orton, Maud M orton, Kathleen M orton Fund E. Freeman Mould Fund Jane C. Mould Fund The Crispin and Kate Oglebay Trust Mary King O sborn Fund William P. Palmer Fund The Dr. Charles B. Parker Memorial Fund Douglas Perkins Fund Grace M. Pew Fund Walter D. Price Fund William H. Price Fund The J. Ambrose and Jessie Wheeler Purcell Memorial Fund Clay L. and Florence Rannells Reely Fund The Retreat M emorial Fund Charles L. Richman Fund Nathan G. Richman Fund Alice M. Rockefeller Fund Charles F. Ruby Fund The M ary Coit Sanford Memorial Fund Mary Coit Sanford Fund Dr. Henry A. and M ary J. Schlink Memorial Fund William C. Scofield M emorial Fund

21,522 5,000 13,716 68,028* 961,985 107,462 652,284 2,190,106 4,921 26,101 344,748 * 117,319 185,966 17,090 * 31,628 4,727,167

104,758 106,407 108,232 93,518 218,790 157,845

4,004 39,360 58,043 189,026

Frank S. Sheets and Alberta G. Sheets Memorial Fund Frank E. Shepardson Fund The A. H. and Julia W. Shunk Fund The Thom as and Anna Sidlo Fund The Nellie B. Snavely Fund A. L. Somers Fund W illiam J. Southworth Fund Dr. George P. Soyer Fund M arion R. Spellman Fund Josephine L. Sperry Fund Avery L. Sterner Fund Ada Gates Stevens Memorial Fund Catherine E. Stewart, M artha A. Stewart, Judith H. Stewart and Jeannette Stewart Memorial Fund Charles L. and M arion H. Stone Fund Harriet B. Storrs Fund Leonard F. Stowe Fund Henrietta Teufel Memorial Fund Amos Burt and Jeanne L. Thompson Fund M abelle G. and Finton L. Torrence Fund Charles F. Uhl Fund John F. and M ary G. Wahl Memorial Fund Jessie M acDonald W alker Memorial Fund M abel Breckenridge Wason Fund George B. and Edith S. Wheeler Trust

19,893 45,718 107,371 300,810 567,449 181,242 450,311* 14,729 10,618 2,371 74,900 26,813

12,009 283,669 749,042 412,703 692,210 51,742 91,153 1,108

405,786 42,410 620,789* 393,152

Edward Loder W hittem ore Fund Henry E. and Ethel L. Widdell Fund James D. W illiamson Fund The George H., Charles E., and Samuel Denny Wilson Memorial Fund Edith Anisfield Wolf Fund David C. Wright Memorial Fund Edith Wright Memorial Fund Cleveland Foundation Combined Fund Total all Trusteed Funds

25,684 40,513 5,186

178,951 4,754,845* 233,190 263,926 2,666,602 $80,818,076

Non-Trusteed Funds The following funds are held in a special account, the donors expressing their desire that the gifts be used for certain health or educational purposes.

Cleveland Employees Relations Council Fund M ary and Wallace Duncan Foundation The Health and Welfare Drive, Inc. of Valley View Reed Bricker Fund Shaker Heights Children's Theatre Fund Donald A. and Jane C. Stark Scholarship Fund Mr. K. L. Seelbach Fund W alton Hills Combined Charities Drive gift *These trusts provide, each in varying amounts, for payment of annuities to certain individuals prior to payment of the balance of the income to the Foundation. In 1969 The Cleveland Foundation received 84.1% of the aggregate income of the several funds. Ultimately, it will receive the entire net income.

The Cleveland Foundation Combined Fund

Memorial Funds and Other Gifts More than 1800 donors have contributed to the Combined Fund which is made up of the following mem orials and other gifts:

Morris Abrams Fund Academy of Medicine Health Education Foundation Fund Rhoda L. Affelder Fund Wickham H. Aldrich Fund Eunice Westfall Allen M emorial Samuel Westfall Allen Memorial Lydia May Ames Fund Katherine B. Arundel Fund Leonard P. Ayres Memorial A. D. Baldwin Memorial Fund Robert K. Beck Memorial Beulah Holden Bluim Memorial Arthur Blythin Memorial Robert Blythin Memorial Helen R. Bowler Fund Nap. H. Boynton M emorial Fund Alva Bradley Memorial Brigham Britton Fund Charles F. Buescher Memorial Thomas Burnham Memorial Elizabeth A. Burton Memorial Robert H. Busch Scholarship Fund Carmela Cafarelli Fund Edna L. and Gustav W. Carlson Foundation Memorial Fund Leyton E. Carter M emorial Fund George S. Case Fund Isabel D. Chamberlin Fund Fred H. Chapin Memorial

Adele Corning Chisholm Memorial Mr. and Mrs. Harold T. Clark Fund Inez and Harry Clement Award Fund Cleveland Center on Alcoholism Fund Cleveland Conference for Educational Cooperation Fund Cleveland Guidance Center Endowment Fund Cleveland Heights High School Scholarship Fund Cleveland Psychoanalytic Society Fund Cleveland Sorosis Fund Cleveland War Memorial Arthur Cobb Memorial Arthur Cobb, Jr. Memorial Florence Haney Cobb Memorial Louise B. Cobb Memorial M ary Gaylord Cobb Memorial Percy Wells Cobb Memorial Ralph W. Cobb, Jr. Memorial Dr. Harold N. Cole Memorial Judge Alva R. Corlett Memorial M ary B. Couch Fund Jacob D. Cox, Jr. Memorial Dr. W ilbur S. Crowell Memorial M arianne North Cummer Memorial Glenn A. Cutler Memorial

Nathan L. Dauby Memorial Carl Dittm ar Memorial Magdalene Pahler Donahey Fund Anna J. Dorman and Pliny O. Dorman Memorial Fund James J. Doyle and Lillian Herron Doyle Scholarship Fund Robert J. Drake Memorial

Kristian Eilertsen Fund

Joseph C. Hostetler M emorial

Arthur Feher Fund W illiam S. and Freda M. Fell M emorial Fund Herold and Clara Fellinger Charitable Fund Sidney B. Fink M emorial Frances B. and George W. Ford Memorial Harriet R. Fowler Fund Katyruth Strieker Fraley Memorial Annie A. France Fund Mrs. Hermine Frankel Memorial I. F. Freiberger Fund M rs. I. F. Freiberger M emorial Fund W inifred Fryer M emorial Fund

The Norma W itt Jackson Fund James K. Johnson, Jr. M em orial Fund M inerva B. Johnson M em orial Fund Florence Jones M em orial Fund Mr. and Mrs. Sidney D. Josephs Fund

Mrs. Florence I. Garrett M emorial Dr. Frank S. Gibson M emorial Fund Ellen Gardner Gilmore Memorial Frances Southworth G off M emorial Robert B. Grandin Memorial James L. Greene Memorial Bell Greve M emorial Fund Robert Hays Gries Memorial Isador Grossman Memorial Fund Jessie Haig Memorial Florence Hamilton Memorial Leonard C. Hanna Jr., Cleveland Play House Fund Leonard C. Hanna Jr., Special Fund Mrs. Ward Harrison Memorial F. H. Haserot Fund Homer H. Hatch Fund James W. Havighurst Memorial Scholarship Fund Lewis Howard Hayden and Lulu M ay Hayden Fund Iva L. Herl Fund The Siegmund and Bertha B. Herzog Endowment Fund Highland View Hospital Employees' Gift Fund Reuben W. Hitchcock Fund M ary Louise Hobson Memorial Fund Cora Millet Holden Memorial Guerdon S. Holden Memorial Dr. John W. Holloway Memorial Fund A. R. Horr Fund

Jospeh E. Kewley M emorial Fund Quay H. Kinzig Memorial Thom as M. Kirby Memorial Dr. Emmanuel Klaus Memorial Fund The Philip E. and Bertha Hawley Knowlton Fund Estelle C. Koch Memorial Scholarship Fund Richard H. Kohn Fund Samuel E. Kramer Law Scholarship Fund George H. Lapham Fund Mr. and Mrs. Robert S. Latham Fund Dr. and Mrs. Robert H. Lechner Fund M argaret Irene Leslie Fund M eta M. Long Fund The William Fred M ackay and Cora Carlisle M ackay Memorial Fund George A. and M ary E. M arten Fund Mrs. E. O. M arting Memorial The Frederick R. and Bertha Specht Mautz Scholarship Fund M alcolm L. McBride and John Harris McBride II M emorial Thom as M cCauslen Memorial Mrs. E. P. McCullugh Memorial Emma E. M cDonald Fund Anna Curtiss M cNutt M emorial Charles E. Meink Memorial W illiam J. M ericka Memorial The Grace E. Meyette Fund Emma B. M inch Fund John A. Mitchell and Blanche G. Mitchell Fund Harry F. M iter Memorial Helen M oore Fund Daniel E. Morgan Memorial Fund Ray E. Munn Fund John P. Murphy M emorial Fund

Christopher Bruce Narten M emorial Fund The National City Bank Fund Harlan H. Newell M emorial John F. Oberlin and John C. Oberlin Fund Ethelwyne W alton O sborn Memorial Erla Schlather Parker Fund Caroline Brown Prescott Memorial Mary Dunham Prescott Memorial The George John Putz and M argaret Putz Memorial Fund The George F. Quinn M emorial Scholarship Fund Omar S. Ranney M emorial Grace P. Rawson Fund ! Marie Richardson M emorial Fund Minerva P. Ridley Fund Gertrude M. Robertson Memorial Elizabeth Becker Rorabeck Fund Edward L. Rosenfeld and Bertha M. Rosenfeld Fund Dr. A.T. Roskos Fund Mrs. Raymond T. Sawyer Memorial Oliver H. Schaaf Fund The Robert N. Schwartz Fund for Retarded Children Warner Seely Fund Arthur H. Seibig Fund Mrs. Louis B. Seltzer M emorial Annette S. Shagren M emorial Nina Sherrer Fund Frances W. and John Sherwin Fund Dr. Thomas Shupe M emorial Fund David G. Skall Memorial Mr. and Mrs. Paul T. Skove Fund Josephine R. and Edward W. Sloan, Jr. Fund Social Work Scholarship Fund Society for Crippled Children —Tris Speaker Memorial Fund Society National Bank Fund Meade A. Spencer M emorial

Belle Bierce Stair Memorial The Miriam Kerruish Stage Fund Frederick S. Stamberger Memorial Nellie Steele Stewart Memorial Ralph P. Stoddard Memorial Fund Joseph T. Sweeny Memorial Charles Farrand Taplin and Elsie H.Taplin Fund C. F.Taplin Fund Jessie Loyd Tarr Memorial Elizabeth Bebout Taylor Memorial M ary J.Tew ksbury Fund Allison John Thompson Memorial Sarah R. Thompson Fund Maud Kerruish Towson Memorial Jessie C .Tucker Memorial Fund Leo W. Ulmer Fund Cornelia Blakemore Warner Memorial Stanley H. Watson Memorial Frank W alter Weide Fund Caroline Briggs Welch Memorial S. Burns and Simonne H. Weston Fund Lucius J. and Jennie C. Wheeler Fund Elliott H. W hitlock Memorial M ary C. Whitney Fund R. N. and H. R. Wiesenberger Fund Lewis B. Williams Memorial M arjorie A. W inbigler Memorial John W. Woodburn Memorial Nelle P. Woodworth Fund Leward C. W ykoff Memorial Dr. Edward A. Yurick Fund Herbert E. and Eleanor M. Zdara Memorial Fund

46

mmhk

47

The Cleveland Foundation Grants 1969

Education

Grants Approved In 1969

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

Higher BALDWIN-WALLACE COLLEGE Capital Support-Art & Drama Center Operating Support* For Preparation of Teachers In Humanities

$ 50,000.00 16,729.68

$ 50,000.00 16,729.68 16,441.00

4,683.88

4,683.88 8,241.00 3,279.22 6,250.00 2,952.26 86,112.26 90,000.00 60.87 15,000.00

- 04,120.00 - 012,500.00 - 0- 01 0 0 , 0 0 0 .0 0

498.18 15,000.00

498.18 15,000.00

-

0 0

-

4,683.88

4,683.88

-

0

-

305.78 1,500.00

305.78 1,500.00

-

0

-

75,000.00

25,000.00

50,000.00

MORLEY LIBRARY, PAINESVILLE, OHIO Books for junior college courses

1 , 0 0 0 .0 0

1 ,0 0 0 .0 0

-

0

-

UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND, INC. General Support

1 , 0 0 0 .0 0

1 ,0 0 0 .0 0

-

0

-

URSULINE COLLEGE Capital Support

5,000.00

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY Operating Support of W.R.U? Professors' Salary Supplement Adelbert College* Astronomy Department Operating Support Franklin Thomas Backus Law School* Graduate School* Law School Building Fund Library School for Reference Books* Department of Otolaryngology CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY Festival of Comic Arts in America Bachelor of Engineering Technologies Program KENYON COLLEGE, GAMBIER, OHIO General Support* LAKE ERIE COLLEGE, PAINESVILLE, OHIO Operating Support* Special Lecture Series LAKELAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE Capital Support

3,279.22 18,750.00 2,952.26 86,112.26 60.87

$286,556.01

'R ecip ien ts o r p ro g ram s d esign ated by d o n o rs

-

0

-

$348,738.01

$

-

-

0-

0

0

0

-

45,000.00

0

5,000.00 $216,620.00

Elementary and Secondary CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION Curriculum Review Study Family Life Education Program

Grants Approved In 1969

$ 23,000.00 137,000.00

CUYAHOGA COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOCIATION Executive Office to Coordinate Activities HAWKEN SCHOOL Operating Support* DANIEL MORGAN SCHOOL Books Award to Children*

Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

$ 14,900.00 40,500.00

$ 8,100.00 96,500.00

12 , 000.00

- 0-

326.96

326.96

-0 -

106.76

106.76

-0 -

$160,433.72

$ 92,833.72

THE PACE ASSOCIATION Operating Purposes

25,000.00

-0 $104,600.00

Scholarships BALDWIN-WALLACE COLLEGE Scholarships —Undergraduate CAPITAL UNIVERSITY COLUMBUS, OHIO Scholarships —Undergraduate* CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY Scholarships* Flora Stone Mather* Oglebay Fellowship Program* Scholarships —Undergraduate Medical School* Scholarship in Aerospace or Computers* Backus Law School* School of Architecture* CHILDREN'S THEATER OF SHAKER HEIGHTS DRAMA AWARD A. A. Beduhn Award* CLEVELAND SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, INCORPORATED For Inner-City Youth CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY Scholarships —Undergraduate COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIP FOR CITY OF CLEVELAND STUDENT Inez and Harry Clement Award* HARRY COULBY SCHOLARSHIP TRUST New Scholarships and Renewals* COUNCIL AND LEAGUE FOR NURSING Scholarships ^R ecip ien ts o r p ro g ram s design ated by d o n o rs

$ 7,500.00

$7,500.00

$ -0 -

944.85

944.85

-0 -

15,195.76 783.13 47,505.52 16,000.00 6,676.70 81.46 3,009.18 500.00

15,195.76 783.13 47,505.52 16,000.00 6,676.70 81.46 3,009.18 500.00

-0 -0 -0 - 0-0 -0 -0 -0 -

50.00

50.00

-0 -

3.200.00

—0 —

3,200.00

5,000.00

5,000.00

-0 -

500.00

500.00

-0 -

18,568.50

18,568.50

-0 -

3.200.00

3,200.00

-0 -

Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

5,000.00 5,743.75

5,000.00 5,743.75

-

1,900.00

1,850.00

14,309.24

14,309.24

4,800.00

2 , 1 0 0 .0 0

LAKE ERIE COLLEGE, PAINESVILLE, OHIO Harriet B. Storrs and Lake Erie College Scholarships

13,000.00

13,000.00

SHARON, PENNSYLVANIA STUDENTS George H. Boyd Scholarships

14,765.00

13,870.00

2,500.00

2,500.00

14,000.00

13,000.00

809.24

809.24

-

0

-

13,125.00

13,125.00

-

0

-

5,000.00 $223,667.33

1,500.00 $212,322.33

$ 23,720.00

$

$

$ 4,000.00

Grants Approved In 1969

CUYAHOGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE Scholarships —Full-time students Scholarships —Part-time students ELYRIA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Ada Gates Stevens College Scholarships* JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY Scholarships —Undergraduate LAKE COUNTY AND GEAUGA COUNTY STUDENTS Sherman Johnson Memorial Fund Medical Scholarship Awards*

MIRIAM KERRUISH STAGE FUND Shaker Heights High School Student Scholarships* DONALD A. AND JANE C. STARK FUND Scholarships* URSULINE COLLEGE Scholarship* URSULINE-SACRED HEART ACADEMY Scholarship Program WELFARE FEDERATION For scholarships awarded by careers in social work and The Central Personnel Services Division*

Special Programs ANISFIELD-WOLF AWARD COMMITTEE, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY Awards for creative and technical writing in racial relations* ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B’NAI B’RITH Operating Support CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY Biology Field Station at Valleevue Farm* Educational Leadership Development Experimental Pre-Health Science Course Science Grants School of Medicine William McLean Wallace Symposium on Pediatrics CENTRAL SCHOOL OF PRACTICAL NURSING, INC. Visual teaching aids and other equipment *R ecipien ts o r p ro g ra m s d esign ated by d o n o rs

4,000.00

4,000.00

0 0

-

950.00 -

0

-

3,000.00 -

0

-

6,070.00 -

0

-

7,000.00

3,500.00

5,000.00

-

15,835.17 9,860.00 8,278.00

15,835.17 9,860.00 8,278.00 36,500.00

-

0

1 , 0 0 0 .0 0

1 ,0 0 0 .0 0

-

0

-

3,775.00

3,775.00

-

0

-

0

-

5,000.00 00-

0

50 Grants Approved In 1969

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

200.00

200.00

-

0-

CLEVELAND PUBLIC LIBRARY Services to shut-ins*

47,137.21

47,137.21

-

0-

CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY "Voices of the Black Generation”

29,400.00

29.400.00

-

0-

EDUCATION TELEVISION ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN CLEVELAND Capital Support

60,000.00

60,000.00

-

0-

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE Afro-American History Cultural School Program

41.000.00

41.000.00

-

0-

NATURAL SCIENCE MUSEUM Capital Support

75.000.00

25.000.00

50.000.00

PROJECT WORK "Reading is Fun-Damental” Program

25.000.00

12.500.00

12,500.00

CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION Equipment for the educable mentally retarded

SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL CENTER-CLEVELAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS Edith Anisfield Wolf Community Service Award URBAN LEAGUE OF CLEVELAND Educational Street Academy Program

5,000.00 90.000.00 $420,485.38

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

-

0

-

5,000.00

-

0

-

90.000.00

$294,485.38

$166,500.00

Cultural Affairs AMERICAN-ISRAEL CULTURAL FOUNDATION, INC. Capital Support

$

2,500.00

BLOSSOM MUSIC CENTER Building Program CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION Educational Music Program for gifted high school students CLEVELAND CHAMBER MUSIC SOCIETY Special concerts for inner city school classes CLEVELAND INSTITUTE OF ART Scholarships* CLEVELAND INSTITUTE OF MUSIC Operating Support CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART Operating Support* CLEVELAND MUSIC SCHOOL SETTLEMENT Program Support * R e c ip ie n ts o r p ro g ram s design ated b y d o n o rs

2,500.00 40.000.00

10,000.00 8,500.00

10.000.00 -

0

-

80,000.00

-

0-

8,500.00

868.23

868.23

-

0-

95.000.00

95.000.00

-

0-

9,459.47

9,459.47

-

0-

10.000.00

10.000.00

- 0 -

Grants Approved In 1969

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

CLEVELAND PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA Operating Support

5,000.00

5.000.00

-

CLEVELAND PLAY HOUSE Shakespearian production for students and teachers* Support of new dramatic works* Operating Support*

1.500.00 875.95 1,281.56

1.500.00 875.95 1,281.56

-

0

-

0-

CLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY Operating Support*

1.500.00

1.500.00

COLLINWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER Community Arts Council Programs

26,100.00

FINE ARTS ASSOCIATION, WILLOUGHBY OHIO Capital Support

15,000.00

15.000.00

750.00

750.00

GARDEN CENTER OF GREATER CLEVELAND Support of the library*

-

0-

0

-

- o -

26,100.00

-

0-

GREAT LAKES SHAKESPEARE ASSOCIATION, INC. Operating Support

10 000.00

-

0

-

HOLDEN ARBORETUM Capital Improvements

25.000.00

-

0

-

-

0

-

KARAMU HOUSE Operating Support* Urban Neighborhood Arts Program LA MESA ESPANOLA Memorial lecture speaker

.

58,620.10 105,000.00

58,620.10 52,500.00

156.84

156.84

MUSICAL ARTS ASSOCIATION Support of children's concerts* Operating Support* Operating Support of The Cleveland Orchestra

3,000.00 19,406.83 50,000.00

3.000.00 19,406.83

NATURAL SCIENCE MUSEUM The Planetarium Program* General Operating Support*

1,500.00 40,487.66

1.500.00 40,487.66

OGLEBAY INSTITUTE, WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA Operating Support of Educational and Recreational Program*

64,216.65

64,216.65

1, 000.00

1.000.00

SOUTHERN VERMONT ARTISTS, INC. MANCHESTER, VERMONT Operating Support UNIVERSITY CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION Continuing Program Support *Recipients o r p rog ram s d esign ated b y d o n o rs

-

0

-

75.000.00

52,500.00 -

0

-

-

0-

-

0

-

50,000.00

-

0 0

-

0-

-

-

150,000.00

51

UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND Lakeside Hospital Operating Support* Maternity Hospital Operating Support* Rainbow Hospital Operating Support* Conference Travel* Vascular or Urological Research*

Grants Approved In 1969

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

286,636.64 3,629.44 783.11 1,115.30 32,997.38

286,636.64 3,629.44 783.11 1,115.30 32,997.38

-0 -0 -0 -0 -0

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER Building Fund VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND REHABILITATION SERVICES Purchase of Orthopedic Appliances

—0 —

1 2 0 .0 0

$597,719.57

-

40,000.00

-o -

1 2 0 .0 0

$776,063.25

$654,300.00

Children and Youth AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION NORTHEAST OHIO CHAPTER, INC. Disease detection program for Cleveland schools BEECHBROOK Operating Support* TV equipment for psychiatric group therapy

$ 28,742.00

$ 28,742.00

$

-0 -

24,834.35 6.535.00

24,834.35 6,535.00

-0 -0 -

5.000.00

5,000.00 11,060.00

-0 3,800.00

326.96

326.96

-0 -

15,000.00

15,000.00

-0 -

18.765.00

18,765.00

-0 -

7.000.00

7,000.00

-0 -

CEDAR DROP-IN CENTER Program expansion

19.197.00

19,197.00

-0 -

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY Operating Support* Purchase of tractor

160.25 1.915.00

160.25 1,915.00

-0 -0 -

129.32 231.96

129.32 231.96

-0 -0 -

BELLEFAIRE To provide special psychiatric consultants Group therapy program for disturbed children BOYS’ CLUB OF CLEVELAND Operating Support* CAMP CREST Planning grant for year-round camp for needy children CAMP FIRE GIRLS, CLEVELAND COUNCIL Geological survey and water system repair CATHOLIC CHARITIES CORPORATION Summer camp for mentally retarded children

CHILDREN’S SERVICES Operating Support* Educational opportunities CLEVELAND CENTER FOR RESEARCH IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT Training of Child Therapists *R e c ip ie n ts o r p ro g ram s d esign ated b y d o n o rs

10 ,000.00

10 ,000.00

Grants Approved In 1969 CLEVELAND GUIDANCE CENTER Operating Support* Special treatment for emotionally disturbed children

122.52

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments) 122.52 2, 000.00

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969 -0 -

0-

CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT To Juvenile Bureau for prevention of delinquency*

358.23

358.23

-0 -

COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER OF MT. PLEASANT AND THE BEECH BROOK CHILDREN'S HOME Planning and development of Southeast Cleveland Community Mental Health Center

17,125.75

16,725.75

400.00

13.500.00

13,500.00

-0 -

30.658.00 13.500.00 7.000.00 40.000.00

30,658.00 13,,500.00 7,000.00 40,000.00

-0 -0 -0 -0

20 .000.00

20 , 000-00

- 0-

14.000.00

2,250.00

11,750.00

COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES Hough Youth Council recreation program Bell Center Day Camp Hough Youth Council Employment Program — Operation Progress for Youth Kinsman Area Summer Day Camp Near-West-Side-Tremont Area Day Camp Pride Project—Youth Employment St. Clair Businessmen's Association Employment Program West Central Area Employment Program CUYAHOGA COUNTY ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN AND ADULTS Operating Support CUYAHOGA COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT Give a Christmas Program DAY NURSERY ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND Day care centers Operating Support* Development and implementation of a technical assistance program for day care centers

36,400.00

30,600.00

1,685.00

1,685.00

-0 -

27,251.52 1.000.00

27,251.52 1,000.00

-0 - 0-

116,448.48

116,448.48

-0 -

13.295.00

13,295.00

-0 -

10,000.00 8.000.00

10,000.00 8,000.00

-0 -

8 ,000.00 24.150.00

8 ,000.00 24,150.00

-0-0 -

7,000.00 18.855.00

7,000.00 18,809.55

-0 45.44

GREATER CLEVELAND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ASSOCIATION Program development Glenville Neighborhood and Community Centers In-Service Training and Work Experience P. R. 76 Recreation Program Spanish-American Committee—Youth Employment Program West Side Community House Employment Program Hough Development Corporation Youth Employment Program at League Park Center Puerto Rican Youth Center Program *R e c ip ie n ts o r p ro g ra m s design ated b y d o n o rs

-

- 0-

West Side Community Home Experimental Program Using Arts to Modify Delinquent Behavior HIRAM HOUSE Operating Support* JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER Halle Park Facility Development Program JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION Pilot Youth Center in Cleveland Heights and University Heights JONES HOME OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES Operating Support* JUVENILE COURT OF CLEVELAND Establishment of a suburban branch office HARRIE LARLHAM FOUNDATION, MANTUA, OHIO Home for Mentally Retarded LEAGUE PARK CENTER, INC. Station wagon for transportation of Head Start youngsters MUSIC SCHOOL SETTLEMENT Administration of Summer Arts Festival Program PARMADALE Operating Support* POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE OF CLEVELAND Program Support ROSE-MARY HOME Operating Support* SOCIETY FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN Operating Support* THREE-CORNER-ROUND-PACK OUTFIT, INC. Camping Programs for Boys* YOUTH ENRICHMENT SERVICES, INC. Vocational education to educable retarded WARRENSVILLE HEIGHTS BOARD OF EDUCATION Partial Support of Youth Drop-In Center WELFARE FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND Counselor training program for inner-city youth YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION Outreach workers for the Glenville Area Youth Partners in Action extend services to needy unreached youth in inner-city *Recipients o r p ro g ra m s d esign ated b y d o n o rs

Grants Approved In 1969

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

23,094.00

11,547.00

11,547.00

851.41

851.41

150,000.00

132,000.00

18,000.00

2 0 , 0 0 0 .0 0

1 0 , 0 0 0 .0 0

1 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0

8,009.57

8,009.57 -

0

-

-

-

0

0

-

-

13,450.96

1,076.28

1,076.28

-

0

-

500.00

500.00

-

0

-

6 , 0 0 0 .0 0

6 , 0 0 0 .0 0

-

0

-

338.59

338.59

-

0

-

1 0 , 0 0 0 .0 0

1 0 , 0 0 0 .0 0

-

0

-

458.19

458.19

-

0

-

5,572.47

5,572.47

-

0

-

7,311.50

7,311.50

-

0—

8,500.00

8,500.00

-

0

-

9,118.00

9,118.00

-

12,192.40

12,192.40

-

0

-

3,700.00

3,700.00

-

0

-

1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0

74,081.67

25,918.33

$886,508.75

$859,189.97

$144,629.73

0

-

Grants Approved In 1969

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

Aged AMASA STONE HOUSE Operating Support*

$ 20,398.38

$ 20,398.38

BENJAMIN ROSE INSTITUTE Pensions and Care of Elderly Persons Operating Support*

53.200.00 24,322.30

-0 24,322.30

53,200.00 -0 -

COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES Project Care —Concerned Action Regarding the Elderly Services to the Aged Project Care —Expanding services to the Aged

40.498.00 81.666.00

40,498.00 81,666.00

-0 - 0-

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITYSCHOOL OF MEDICINE Clinical research program for disabled aged and chronically ill

8,064.43

8,064.43

-0 -

4.000.00

4,000.00

^0-

16.500.00

16,440.92

59.08

2,307.08

1,318.59

988.49

CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN GENERAL HOSPITAL L-Dopa treatment of Parkinson's Disease CLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND Outreach to visually handicappped among the elderly ELIZA BRYANT HOME FOR THE AGED Operating Support* EAST END NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE Special Program GOLDEN AGE CENTER Special Needs LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR Operating Support*

51,000.00

-0 -

$

-0 -

51,000.00

394.62

394.62

-0 -

498.84

498.84

-0 -

LUTHERAN HOME FOR THE AGED Operating Support*

9,601.74

9,601.74

-0 -

MENORAH PARK JEWISH HOME FOR AGED Movie equipment

1. 000.00

1 , 000.00

—0-

11.700.00

11,700.00

-0 -

50,000.00

-0 -

5,824.00

-0 -

15,871.00 $291,598.82

-0 $105,247.57

NURSING HOME COMMITTEE OF THE WELFARE FEDERATION Study of nursing home standards OVERLOOK HOUSE Building Program SOUTHWEST SENIOR CENTER Golden Age Center of Parma Heights THE WELFARE FEDERATION Support of the Senior Information and Referral Center

^R ecip ien ts o r p ro g ram s design ated b y d o n o rs

15.871.00 $341,022.39

Grants Approved In 1969

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

Community Service Organizations AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, WASHINGTON, D.C. General Support* COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES Kinsman Opportunity Center Garment Shop Program Equipment

$ 2,082.83

$

2,082.83

$

—0 -

600.00

600.00

CLEVELAND PSYCHOANALYTIC SOCIETY FOUNDATION Operating Support* Training Fellowships and Programs in Child Therapy*

13.57 41,518.01

13.57 41,518.01

-0 -0 -

CLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND Operating Support*

27,748.16

27,748.16

-0 -

160.25

160.25

-0 -

1,783.11

1,783.11

-0 -

737.64

737.64

-0 -

CUYAHOGA COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT Special Needs* FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION General Support* FAIRMOUNT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Operating Support* FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, PAINESVILLE, OHIO Building Fund GREATER CLEVELAND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ASSOCIATION G.C.N.C.A. Operating Support* Capital Support West Side Community Center for Spanish Speaking People

10,000.00

3,923.93 50.000.00

-

0

-

- 0-

3,923.93 -0 -

-0 50,000.00

2.500.00

1,924.20

G.C.N.C.A. ALTA HOUSE Special program in South Collinwood area

6.835.00

-0 -

G.C.N.C.A. GLENVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY CENTERS An Additional Meeting Facility

3.060.00

-0 -

G.C.N.C.A. MERRICK HOUSE Expansion of program in near West Side area

3.400.00

2,500.00

G.C.N.C.A. MT. PLEASANT URBAN SERVICES CENTER Anisfield-Wolf Community Service Award

5,000.00

-0 -

20 .000.00

20 ,000.00

-0-

50,000.00

50,000.00

-0 -

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES Capital Support* Capital Support Recipients o r p ro g ram s d esign ated b y d o n o rs

'â– mm A ll u r a n t

Grants Approved In 1969 JEWISH COMMUNITY FEDERATION Operations Research Model for Social Agency Planning and Allocations General Support

Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

58.300.00

58,300.00 5,000,00

-0 -0 -

MARGIE HOME Capital Support for Home for Retarded Adults

21.900.00

21,900.00

-0 -

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNSELING SERVICE Program Support

52.770.00

8,770.00

44,000.00

6,664.08

6,664.08 78.002.00

-0 1,000.00

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CLEVELAND, INC. General Support* Expansion of Services in the Inner City SALVATION ARMY Operating Support*

6,349.78

6,349.78

-0 -

SHELTERED INDUSTRIES FOR PAINESVILLE BOYS Program Support

300.00

300.00

-0 -

SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL Operating Support*

338.59

338.59

-0 -

500.00

500.00

-0 -

458.20

458.20

-0 -

VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION General Support* VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND REHABILITATION SERVICES Operating Support Needy Clients* Development of Rehabilitation Work Center

2 ,000.00

2 ,000.00

-0-

50.000.00

50,000.00

3,058.12 1,801.98 2,000.00 17.500.00

-0 -0 - 0-0 -

30.000.00

-0 -

10 . 000.00

-

WELFARE FEDERATION Central Volunteer Bureau General Operating* Cleveland Homemaker Service Association* Committee on Mental Retardation Problems To implement recommendations of the health goals project Reorganization planning Interracial-Intercultural Relations Program Anisfield-Wolf Award Administrative costs of the Community Service Award

1.000.00

YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION, PAINESVILLE, OHIO Operating Support

1.000.00

1,000.00

694.28

694.28

YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION Operating Support* UNITED APPEAL OF GREATER CLEVELAND Contributions from 15 funds for operating support* * R e c ip ie n ts o r p ro g ra m s design ated b y d o n o rs

3,058.12 1,801.98 2,000.00

366.24

74,456.96 $432,159.49

-0 -

79,231.97 $563,597.74

0-

-0 2,500.00

-0-0 3,225.00 $155,149.20

Grants Approved In 1969

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

Civic Affairs Citizen Involvement CLEVELAND COUNCIL ON WORLD AFFAIRS The Far East Institute Program CONSUMER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION Expanded Consumer Education Program

$ 2,500.00

$

125,892.00

2,500.00

$-

113,673.53

12,218.47

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (G.C.A.F. Administered) Police Newsletter

11.900.00

-0 -

HARVARD COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER Staff Services

25.000.00

-0 -

HOUGH HOUSING CORPORATION Goodrich Social Settlement for Community and Social Services

6, 668.00

- 0-

URBAN COALITION OF GREATER CLEVELAND Staff Support

30.000.00

-0 -

UNITED AREA CITIZENS AGENCY Staff to assist citizen participation in neighborhood programs

51.000.00

64,500.00

233.88 $128,625.88

233.88 S240,975.41

-0 $ 76,718.47

$ 39,400.00

$

9,850.00

$ 29,550.00

248,566.87

-0 -

145.73

-0 -

WOMEN’S CITY CLUB Educational lectures*

Employment and Economic Development AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE CLEVELAND CHAPTER Executive suite action program CLEVELAND DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION Operating support and reserve for future expenditures* CLEVELAND JOB CORPS CENTER FOR WOMEN Training workshop for staff CONSUMER CREDIT COUNSELING SERVICE Expansion of staff and service GREATER CLEVELAND GROWTH ASSOCIATION To Establish Two Cooperative Meat Markets Jobs Executive Committee Program HEBREW FREE LOAN ASSOCIATION Two awards in memory of John Anisfield and Eugene E. Wolf* *R e c ip ie n ts o r p ro g ram s d esign ated b y d o n o rs

248,566.87

16.100.00

-

0-

35,000.00 70,805.00

35,000.00 19,805.00

-0 51,000.00

1,000.00

1,000.00

- 0-

Grants Approved In 1969

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

HOUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Partial local support to match federal grant for general development purposes

50,000.00

30,000.00

20 ,000.00

LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELAND Supportive Services for Vista personnel and other technical and overhead costs

59,118.00

29,559.00

29,559.00

WELFARE FEDERATION Support of Manpower Planning and Development Commission

20,000.00

WESTSIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Cleveland-American Indian Center-Program Support

Housing

PATH ASSOCIATION Plan of action for tomorrow's housing Operating Support Community Fighters for Housing Large Families Special study of the relation of zoning and cost to the development of housing in Cuyahoga County URBAN LEAGUE OF CLEVELAND Fair Housing Program Operation Equality—Operating Support

Strengthening the Public Service BETTER HOMES FOR CLEVELAND FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED Demonstration Community Law Enforcement Program CLEVELAND PUBLIC LIBRARY Program to improve basic management procedures GREATER CLEVELAND ASSOCIATED FOUNDATION Demonstration Summons Program in The Police Department Maximum utilization of Federal resources study Operating support of Administration of Justice Advisory Committee

*Recipients o r p rog ram s d esign ated b y d o n o rs

0

-

9,000.00

4,500.00

4,500.00

$512,889.87

$414,526.60

$134,609.00

FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL Operating Support MOUNT PLEASANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION Program Support

-

$

7,500.00

-

0

-

9,700.00

8 ,200.00

1,500.00

219,000.00 40,000.00

70.950.00 30.000.00

168,050.00

12,898.00

12.898.00

86,146.00

30.000.00 0-

86,146.00

$367,744.00

$159,548.00

$265,696.00

$ 65,248.00

41,748.00

$ 23,500.00

55,000.00

25,000.00

30,000.00

16,000.00 8,000.00

12,651.55 8,000.00

3,348.45 0-

$

10 , 000.00 -

0

-

-

0

-

95,074.00

42,094.01

52,979.99

$239,322.00

$129,493.56

$109,828.44

63

Grants Approved In 1969

Special Philanthropic Services

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation for Administrative Purposes Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Cleveland Foundation Special Purpose Fund* Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Associated Foundation Trust —Income* Frederick Harris Goff Fund* William P. Palmer Fund

Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation for Grants Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Associated Foundation Trust and Ford Foundation from Principal*

$ 50,114.89

$ 50,114.89

100,019.40 3,722.57 2,084.64

96,519.40 3,722.57 2,084.64

3,500.00 - 0- 0-

$155,941.50

$152,441.50

$ 3,500.00

$659,549.67

$659,549.67

-

*R e c ip ie n ts o r p ro g ra m s d esign ated b y d o n o rs

The Distribution Committee

Trustees Committee

John Sherwin, C hairm an Raymond Q. Armington Mrs. Royal Firman, Jr. Thom as A. Burke Dr. Kenneth W. Clement Edward H. deConingh Edgar A. Hahn H. Stuart Harrison Harvey B. Hobson James D. Ireland Frank E.Joseph George F. Karch Elmer L. Lindseth Thom as F. Patton James A. Norton, D irector an d S ecretary

George F. Karch, C h airm an Chairman of Board and Chief Executive Officer The Cleveland Trust Company Alfred Lamont Jones President and Chief Executive Officer Union Commerce Bank John S. Fangboner Chairman of Board The National City Bank of Cleveland Walter F. Lineberger, Jr. Chairman of Board and Chief Executive Officer Society National Bank of Cleveland Edward L. Carpenter Chairman of Board and Chief Executive Officer Central National Bank of Cleveland

Counsel Trustees Central National Bank of Cleveland The Cleveland Trust Company The National City Bank of Cleveland Society National Bank of Cleveland Union Commerce Bank

Thompson, Hine and Flory Office of the Foundation 700 National City Bank Building Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone: 216/861-3810

-

0-

0-

Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation Annual Report for 1969

Board of Trustees John Sherwin, C hairm an Mrs. Royal Firman, Jr., V ice C hairm an Harvey B. Hobson, V ice C hairm an James D. Ireland, Treasurer Raymond Q. Armington Thom as A. Burke Dr. Kenneth W. Clement Edward H. deConingh Edgar A. Hahn H. Stuart Harrison Frank E. Joseph George F. Karch Elmer L. Lindseth Thom as F. Patton

Purposes of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation • To encourage research on and solution of community problems • To establish priorities for community action • To make grants for research, pilot, experimental and other projects toward the solution of such problems • To encourage sound use of philanthropic funds

Lrreater Cleveland Associated Foundation Grants 1969 Grants Approved In 1969

Education

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

Higher CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY Lecturer on Urban Housing

14.000.00

EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CENTER Research on Remedial Program for College Fail-Outs

15.000.00

GREATER CLEVELAND ASSOCIATED FOUNDATION Consultant Study on Financing Higher Education

$ 10,500.00

5.000.00

3,644.00

1,356.00

5.000.00

32,644.00

$ 11,856.00

$

10, 000.00

$

-

$

10, 000.00

$

-

Elementary and Secondary CUYAHOGA COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOCIATION Staff Services for Cooperative Programs Among the School Districts

0 0

-

-

Special Programs ADMINISTRATIVE CONSORTIUM OF HEIDELBERG, HIRAM, OBERLIN AND WOOSTER COLLEGES Cooperative Urban Studies Program

25,000.00

GARDEN VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE Special Community Conference

1,700.00

1,700.00

GREATER CLEVELAND ASSOCIATED FOUNDATION Management Training Program for Negroes $

-

0-

14,884.10

8,115.90

1,700.00

$ 41,584.10

$ 23,435.90

1,000.00

$

Health and Welfare Children and Youth BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, GREATER CLEVELAND COUNCIL From the Kulas Foundation for Participation in the Boy Scout Jamboree in Idaho

15,320.00

1 , 000.00

Grants Approved In 1969 COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES IN GREATER CLEVELAND Additional Grant for the Preliminary Funding of PRIDE Support of Study and Inventory on Youth Related Programs by Committee of Hough Residents Implementation of Recommendations of the Citizens' Advisory Board

613.28

$

1,613.28

Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

-

—

-

0-

2,770.53

-

0-

18,000.00

-

0-

-

0-

0

$ 21,770.53

$

Community Service Organizations JEWISH COMMUNITY FEDERATION Completion of an Operations Research Model for Social Agency Planning and Allocations

$ 58,300.00

-

0

-

$ 58,300.00 -

-

3,960.00 7,740.00 3,600.00 720.00 1,980.00 9,000.00

3,960.00 7,740.00 3,600.00 720.00 1,980.00 9,000.00

$ 85,300.00

$ 27,000.00

$ 58,300.00

$

1,543.37 25,800.00 2 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0

$ 11,993.37 1,161.44 - 0-

$

5,600.00

5,600.00

-

0-

1 ,0 0 0 .0 0

1 ,0 0 0 .0 0

-

0-

7,780.00

-

0

DAY NURSERY ASSOCIATION FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION HOMEMAKER SERVICE ASSOCIATION TRAVELERS AID SOCIETY YOUTH SERVICE WELFARE FEDERATION Planning and Implementation of Agency Consolidation

0

0-

00-

0 0

Civic Affairs Citizen Involvement BUSINESSMEN'S INTERRACIAL COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Operating Support 1968-69 Operating Support 1969-70 Special Neighborhood Support Programs CONSUMER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION Staff Services HOUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL Publication of the Hough Inventory of Services Report MORELAND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Community Information and Planning Program UNITED AREA CITIZEN AGENCY Staff to Assist Citizen Participation in Neighborhood Programs $ 53,943.37

49,250.00 $ 76,784.81

—0 — 24,638.56 2 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0

-

66,250.00 $110,888.56

Grants Approved In 1969

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

Employment and Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Information System for Manpower Programs in Cleveland GREATER CLEVELAND GROWTH ASSOCIATION Job Executive Committee for Coordination of Comprehensive Employment Program OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER, INC. Interim Funding of Special Manpower Training Program PROJECT WORK Coordination of Employment and Training Programs Administration Costs

$

20 , 000.00

$ 38,000.00

$ 18,000.00

70,805.00

26,325.63

40,000.00

40,000.00

-

0

-

7,000.00

7,000.00

-

0

-

44,479.37

$155,805.00

$ 91,325.63

$ 64,479.37

$ 15,000.00

$ 10,000.00

$

Housing CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY To Develop a Plan for Increased Security in Public Housing Projects FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL To Assist in Providing Housing for Negroes

7,500.00

GREATER CLEVELAND ASSOCIATED FOUNDATION Consultant of Developing a Land and Properties Inventory System

—0

HOUGH HOUSING CORPORATION Social and Community Services in Newly Rehabilitated Units PATH ASSOCIATION Operating Support URBAN LEAGUE OF CLEVELAND To Provide Fair Housing Opportunitiesfor Negroes $ 15.000.00

5,000.00 -

—

0

-

4,794.57

13,333.34

-

0-

50,000.00

-

0

30,000.00 $110,833.34

$

-

09,794.57

Grants Approved In 1969

All Grant Payments in 1969 (Including Prior Year Commitments)

Unpaid Grants December 31,1969

Strengthening the Public Service ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Staff Services for Program to Improve the System of Justice in Greater Cleveland BOARD OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Management Study to Improve Administration of Welfare Department

$ 45,000.00

$ 42,719.07

90.000.00

45,000.00

45,000.00

45,075.00 30.000.00 30.000.00

133,350.00 -0 -0 -

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY Public Management Science Program Study of Urban Violence Research in Separation Problems of Water Pollutants GOVERNMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Community Education Program Based on the Tax Policy Research Report Completion of Program to Implement the Recommendations of the Little Hoover Commission Little Hoover Commission Governmental Communications Program Little Hoover Commission Continuance of the Governmental Communications Program Review of Current Community Attitudes Toward Metropolitan Government GREATER CLEVELAND ASSOCIATED FOUNDATION Leadership Training Program Supported by National Institute of Public Affairs Management Training Program for Staff Personnel in the City of Cleveland Police Cadet Training Program at Cuyahoga Community College Additional Grant Summer Intern Program KENT STATE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR URBAN REGIONALISM Student Involvement Program in Constitutional Revision

10 . 000.00

$

2,280.93

-

0-

15.000.00

15,000.00

-0 -

25.000.00

25,000.00

—0 -

18.000.00

18,000.00

-

10 ,000.00

- 0-

0-

10,000.00

-0 -

2,466.83

-0 -

4,371.97

1,367.20 2,053.19

17,555.80 2,053.19

—0 — -0 -

55,000.00 $261,420.39

1,000.00 $281,403.06

54,000.00 $251,469.73

72

Balance Sheet Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation December 31,1969

Assets Operating Fund Cash Receivables: From contributors to designated programs From The Cleveland Foundation Investment income Payable from special fund Furniture and equipment — at nominal amount O ther assets

$ $

31,051 19 559 20 979

------------

71,589 59,869 1 8,736 183,289

Special Funds —Note A Cash U.S. Government securities — at cost (approximate market $1,517,000)

43,094

2,153 1,546,667

1,548,820

$1,732,109

Liabilities and Fund Balances Operating Fund Accounts payable and accrued expenses Fund balance: Restricted: To certain grants Contributions for designated programs

$

$

4,522

2,860 101,141 104,001

Unrestricted — available for operating purposes

74,766

178,767 183,289

Special Fund — Note A Payable to operating fund Fund balance: Available for future grants: For research and action on com m unity problems Undesignated Unexpended balance of previous grants

59,869

$ 630,354 328,373 958,727 530,224

1,488,951

1,548,820 $1,732,109

Note A — The Foundation is required, under the terms of grants from the Ford Foundation and of a trust agreement with The Leonard C. H anna, Jr. Fund, to distribute or com m it to distribution all special funds and income thereon by Decem ber 31,1971.

Statement of Changes in Fund Balances Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation Year ended December 31,1969

Operating Fund Contributions Restricted to Designated Programs

Unrestricted

Special Fund

23,348

$ 105,817

$ 122,845

$2,176,891

30,700

400,601

50,115 1,313

98,347

Restricted to Certain Grants Balance at January 1,1969 Receipts: Contributions Investment income earned Fee income from The Cleveland Foundation Am ortization of bond premium Receipt of grants administered through operating fund Net gain on sale of securities

$

111,431 318 98,482 4,970 152,530

Disbursements: Grants (including grants administered through operating fund) Administrative expenses — Note B Grants administered through operating fund Contributions received for designated programs

506,418

285,704

693,345 309,168 149,670 405,277 2,860

101,141

23,464*

Transfer of investment income from special fund to operating fund Balance at December 31,1969

2,280,526

98,230 $

2,860

$ 101,141

$

74,766

1,587,181

9 8 ,2 3 0 v $1,488,951

i n d i c a t e s red fig u re .

N o te B — T h e F o u n d a tio n h a s an in su re d p e n sio n p la n fo r c e r ta in e m p lo y e e s . T h e to ta l p e n s io n e x p e n s e f o r th e y e a r w a s $ 3 2 ,4 3 2 A c c ru e d p e n s io n c o s t is fu n d ed .

75

Auditor's Report

Board of Trustees Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation Cleveland, Ohio We have examined the balance sheet of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation as of December 31,1969, and the related statement of changes in fund balances for the year then ended. Our examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and accordingly included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

In our opinion, the accompanying balance sheet and statement of changes in fund balances pre足 sent fairly the financial position of the Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation at December 31,1969, and the changes in fund balances for the year then ended, in conform ity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year.

Ernst & Ernst Cleveland, Ohio March 30,1970

Staff: James A. Norton, P residen t an d D irector Mrs. Barbara Rawson, A ssistan t D irector Bruce L. Newman, A ssistan t D irector Jack Agueros, U rban F ellow Thom as Albert, S ta ff A ssocia te J. Kimball Johnson, C on sultant Roland H. Johnson, S ta ff A ssocia te Robert F. Risberg, F inancial M an ager Seymour Slavin, C on sultant

Foundation Center 700 National City Bank Building Telephone 216/861-3810

Suggested forms for gifts or bequests to The Cleveland Foundation by will or trust agreement

Gift or bequest to be held as separate trust "I give (bequeath) t o ........................................................ (name of Bank or Trust company) as trustee, to be administered as a separate trust estate for the purposes of The Cleveland Foun­ dation in accordance with a written Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of said trustee on , 19 as supplemented by a written Resolution adopted by the Distribution Committee and approved by the Trustees Com­ mittee of The Cleveland Foundation on April 14,1967. Said Resolutions are now in existence and are incorporated herein!'

The names of the five banks and the dates on which their respective Boards of Directors adopted the Resolution mentioned first above are as follows: Central National Bank of Cleveland The Cleveland Trust Company The National City Bank of Cleveland Society National Bank of Cleveland Union Commerce Bank

December 24, 1930 January 5,1931 June 11,1934 January 22, 1960 April 14,1955

Gift or bequest to the Combined Fund To establish a fund or memorial in the Combined Fund, the following language is suggested: "I give (bequeath) t o .............................................................(name of Bank or Trust company) as trustee, to be added to and administered as a part of the trust estate, known as The Cleve­ land Foundation Combined Fund, held by said trustee under its written Declaration of Trust dated , 19 The dates on which the five banks executed the Declaration of Trust mentioned above are as follows: Central National Bank of Cleveland The Cleveland Trust Company The National City Bank of Cleveland Society National Bank of Cleveland Union Commerce Bank

July 22,1943 July 6,1943 August 9,1943 April 15,1960 April 18, 1956

General It is suggested that a person confer with one of the trustee banks as to whether he should make his gift as an addition to the Combined Fund, rather than create a separate trust estate.

If it is desired that the gift bear a name as a memorial, the following language may be used: “It is my desire that the foregoing gift be known as th e ............ ................................................................ (Fund or Memorial).

Further information and suggestions concerning the language to be employed in specific situations may be obtained by attorneys from the trust departments of any of the five par­ ticipating trustee institutions or from the office of The Cleveland Foundation.

Tax Reform Act of 1969 Private foundations considering transfer of their assets to The Cleveland Foundation —a public charity under the terms of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 —should contact the Director of The Cleveland Foundation.