19
54 19
5 19
5
56 19
5 19
8 95 71 95 1 6
59 19
96 01 19 6
11
19 962
63
968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 19 6 1967 1 75 195 56 196 6 1 97 65 1 9 6 19 9 1 77 1 1964 9
78 1 979 198 0
198
11
982 19 83
19 84
19 85 19 56 19 8
6
19
87
95
1941 1942
1 995
97 1 99
1935 1936 1937 19 38 1939 1940
194
43 1 944 194 5
81 94
94
89 9 19
61 947 1
19
91 9 50 19 51
53
19
19 52
88 19 90 19 3 99 21 99 1 1
1 94 19 19 996 61
99 2 8 19 000 20 2 01 2002
003 2004 2005
Seventieth Anniversary
Report 2000-2005
Seventieth Anniversary
Report 2000-2005
1
Table of Contents Rosenberg Foundation
2
Message from the Chair
4
Message from the President
6
Message from the Past President
8
A Portrait of Life in Today’s Central Valley 12 Grants – Changing Population
17
Child Support Reform
25
Economic Security
28
Promoting Philanthrophy
35
Message from the Treasurer
40
Audited Financial Statements and Notes
42
How to Apply
50
Rosenberg Foundation
Table of Contents
2
Rosenberg Foundation Rosenberg Foundation was created in 1935 by the terms of the will of Max L. Rosenberg, a native Californian and businessman. During his lifetime, he gave generously in support of human betterment. In his will, Max provided for the continued application of his fortune to this objective by endowing the Foundation. In 1969, the Rosenberg Foundation received a second major bequest from the estate of Charlotte Mack, one of the Foundation’s early directors. In the years since, the Foundation has received several other major donations, including gifts from the Eleanor Sloss Trust and the Ben Goldberger Trust. The aim of the Rosenberg Foundation is to achieve signiďŹ cant and lasting improvements in the lives of the people of California.
Max L. Rosenberg
The Foundation makes venture capital grants to private nonproďŹ t organizations and public agencies that will use its funds to achieve economic, social, or civic progress. The Foundation is a patient, but not permanent, investor. It is not risk averse.
3
The aim of the Rosenberg Foundation is to achieve signiďŹ cant and lasting improvements in the lives of the people of California.
Rosenberg Foundation Past Rosenberg Directors Foundation Directors
Hon. Cruz Reynoso (1979-1992)
Phyllis Cook
Louise R. Berman (1935-1951)
Richard M. Rosenberg (1984-1985)
Robert Friedman
Cecilia Preciado de Burciaga (1995-1996)
William M. Roth (1970-1977)
Daniel Grossman
Lewis H. Butler (1967-69, 1972-84)
Walter Rothchild (1935-1937)
Herma Hill Kay
Caroline M. Charles (1948-1974)
Frank H. Sloss (1963-1977)
Bill Lann Lee
Monroe E. Deutsch (1938-1950)
Peter F. Sloss (1977-1992)
Leslie Luttgens
Benton W. Dial (1986-97, 1998-2000)
Eleanor F. Sloss (1946-1970)
Shauna Marshall
Robert Di Giorgio (1957-1962)
Norvel Smith (1974-1994)
Hugo Morales
Hon. Ben C. Duniway (1960-1975)
Roy Sorenson (1951-1966)
Albert Moreno
James M. Edgar (1995-2004)
Malcolm S. M. Watts, M.D (1962-1973)
Judge Henry Ramsey, Jr.
Paul C. Edwards (1941-1961)
Frederic B. Whitman (1955-1973)
Laura Scher
Charles de Young Elkus (1938-1963)
S. Donley Ritchey (1985-1999)
W. Parmer Fuller III (1954-1960) Herman E. Gallegos (1973-1979)
Rosenberg Foundation Staff
R. S. Green (1937-1938)
Benjamin Todd Jealous,
Richard E. Guggenhime (1950-1969)
President and Secretary
Peter E. Haas (1969-1983)
Linda Moll, Business and Grants Manager
Charlene Harvey (1995-2002)
Tammy Tanner, Administrative Assistant
Hon. Thelton E. Henderson (1992-1999)
Ellen Widess, Senior Program OfďŹ cer
James C. Gaither (1980-1984)
Bill Ong Hing (1994-2004) William R. Kimball (1977-1985) Jing Lyman (1973-1980)
Past Rosenberg Foundation Presidents
Charlotte S. Mack (1943-1948)
Kirke Wilson (1974-2005)
J. Ward Maillard (1946-1954)
Ruth Chance (1958-1974)
Garrett W. McEnerney (1941-1942)
Leslie Ganyard (1936-1959)
Marguerite S. Lederberg, M.D.(1975-1978)
Harold McKinnon (1946-1955) Fred H. Merrill (1962-1972) Mary S. Metz (1985-1994) Richard M. Neustadt (1945-1946) Arthur C. Oppenheimer (1935-1944) Emilie Oppenheimer (1935-1940) Bishop Edward L. Parsons (1943-1957)
Rosenberg Foundation
4
Message from the Chair It has been seven decades since the Rosenberg Foundation made its first grant. From its early work supporting efforts on behalf of Japanese American families returning from internment camps to its more recent work funding those who defend the rights of day laborers and Wal-Mart workers, the Foundation has consistently distinguished itself as an ally of the most vulnerable residents of the Golden State. Over the past three decades, the Foundation’s grantmaking has come to be defined by its support for advocates pursuing structural reforms to many of the toughest problems facing California’s economically struggling families. While several people have been involved in the Foundation’s grantmaking during that period, no one is more responsible for its direction than Kirke Wilson. Kirke would be quick (and correct) to point out that the board bears ultimate responsibility for each grantmaking decision. Nonetheless, Kirke led this institution from the day he started in 1974 to the day he retired in early 2005. In the process, he became a revered leader in the field of philanthropy, and created a legacy of forward-thinking and courageous grantmaking. Accordingly, the years covered by this report – 2000 to 2005 – contain an important period of transition. In selecting the Foundation’s new president, the directors ultimately chose to embrace someone who is as Kirke was when he arrived: a young Californian, with strong intellectual capabilities and experience leading organizations like those the Foundation supports. The fourth person to lead the Foundation since its founding, Ben Jealous brings a fresh perspective to our mission of addressing the needs of California’s low- and middle-income families in ways that are strategic and long lasting. The Rosenberg Foundation is nothing if not a truly independent institution. It is governed by a small and diverse group of volunteers. Our only connections to its founder, Max Rosenberg, are the endowment he
5
The Foundation’s grantmaking has come to be defined by its support for advocates pursuing structural reforms to many of the toughest problems facing California’s economically struggling families.
seeded and our shared belief in the need to support people who have the vision, determination, and skills required to make our state, nation, and world a better place. Thus, on behalf of the board, staff, and grantees, I express deep gratitude to Benton Dial, James Edgar (chair, 2001-2003), Charlene Harvey, and Bill Ong Hing (chair, 1999Funds Granted by the Program 2001) who each have 2000 – 2005 (in thousands) rotated off the board of Program 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 directors since 2000, and Changing Population $1,490 $1,250 $1,820 $1,126 $1,571 $1,418 to Albert Moreno whose Child Support Reform 794 670 15 0 0 0 term as chair (2003-2005) Economic Security 1,605 1,483 1,123 800 950 1,095 included the search for Effective Philanthropy 184 195 141 124 60 103 the new president. We Other 15 120 0 10 0 0 all lament the passing Total $4,088 $3,718 $3,099 $2,060 $2,581 $2,616 of Peter Haas, William Kimball, Norvel Smith, and Malcolm Watts, each of whom is among the long list of distinguished Californians who have served as a Rosenberg Foundation trustee. Finally, I know that I speak for each of the Foundation’s current and past directors and officers when I express my pride in welcoming Danny Grossman, Bill Lann Lee, and Laura Scher to our ranks. Thank you for taking a moment to read this report. I hope that the work of the Foundation’s grantees brings you inspiration. Shauna Marshall Chair (2005-2007)
Rosenberg Foundation
Message from the Chair
6
Message from the President This report provides a summary of the Rosenberg Foundation’s grantmaking from 2000 through 2005. The projects described are a reflection of this institution’s commitment to nurturing promising efforts to make California a more just and economically inclusive society. Like Max L. Rosenberg – the successful Californian agricultural entrepreneur who made the first and most significant contribution to its endowment – the Foundation ultimately invests in saplings. When first selected, most of the projects supported by the Foundation are young and better distinguished by a picture of what they might produce than by any visible characteristic. The period from germination to first harvest takes time. Success is dependent upon both their initial signs of promise and their being tended with a healthy balance of care, patience, and discipline. This report is a celebration of six years of bountiful harvests. While the Foundation is still recovering from the blow that the 2001 depressed stock market had on our investment portfolio, the Foundation’s directors and staff have done everything in their power to keep the negative impact on its endowment from undermining the ongoing efforts of grantees. As a result, many long-nurtured projects have been able to mature and bear real fruit for the working people of California and the communities in which we all live and work. I am delighted to report that several Rosenberg Foundation projects have achieved major victories since 2000. Examples include: new living-wage policies in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco; local employment and affordable housing agreements on many large-scale economic development projects in cities such as Los Angeles and Oakland; a network of worker centers that enable low-wage workers to organize to improve their wages, working conditions, and overall integration into California society; and Wal-Mart’s decision to make a one-time increase in wages for every female employee and to post new promotion opportunities for all its workers.
7
The projects described are a reflection of this institution’s commitment to nurturing promising efforts to make California a more just and economically inclusive society.
In order to help ensure future success, the Foundation is revisiting its mission and general programs for the first time in 20 years. The final decisions will be made after this report has gone to print. Nonetheless, early discussions have clarified that the Foundation will: •
maintain its focus on opportunities for structural reform to public and corporate policies and practices that will benefit the people of this state;
•
continue making major investments in issues of urgent concern to economically struggling Californians;
•
combine its three current programs into one more strategicallyintegrated portfolio;
•
and keep on supporting promising efforts even if they are currently controversial, unpopular, or generally unrecognized.
In summary, while the Foundation’s ongoing strategic planning process is likely to result in investments in a new field or two, its current commitments are being maintained, and the Foundation’s basic method for cultivating a more just and economically inclusive California remains unchanged: look for the little tree with healthy roots and branches, add nourishment and faith, and expect great things. Benjamin Todd Jealous President
Rosenberg Foundation
Message from the President
8
Message from the Past President Thirty-one years is a long time to spend in one job. It is long enough to have observed profound changes in the landscape in which foundations operate. It is also long enough to have tried numerous grantmaking approaches and to have experienced their success and their failure, as well as the ambiguous outcomes that are most common in philanthropy. The biggest changes since 1974 have been among foundations themselves. Despite the fear among foundations that the federal regulations enacted in 1969 would discourage the formation of new foundations, public and private foundations have grown in number, size, and geographical distribution. Community foundations have increasingly differentiated themselves from private foundations and defined their unique roles as community conveners and problem-solvers. Private foundations have increasingly developed systematic grantmaking programs and hired professional staff. The program officers and administrators hired in recent years are far better trained and more diverse in background than the generalists who preceded them. Foundation boards have also become somewhat more diverse and a new generation of young donors has emerged, drawing renewed attention to philanthropic outcomes. Foundations have also increased the number of ways in which they work together and learn from each other. They have strengthened the national Council on Foundations, expanded the reach of the Foundation Center, and formed Independent Sector as a meeting ground of grantmakers and operating charities and as a voice for the sector. Foundations have created an ever-growing array of affinity groups to examine the needs of under-served population groups, share information about program areas and improve the quality of grantmaking. In many areas of the country, grantmakers have formed regional associations to strengthen the practice of philanthropy through education, training, and collaboration. Colleges and universities have established research and training programs in nonprofit management, fundraising, and philanthropic studies. The world in which foundations make grants has become far more complex in the past 30 years. Grantseeking organizations have become far more skilled in identifying funding prospects and presenting their case for
9
For Rosenberg Foundation, the changing environment has entailed continuous learning and adjustment.
support. Professional fundraising staff, once confined to private education and hospitals, is now an integral part of the management of all but the smallest nonprofit organizations. The differences in governance and operations, which existed thirty years ago between voluntary agencies and those established to operate government programs, have largely disappeared as most nonprofit agencies seek both government and private funds to operate their programs. From 1975 to 1985, private philanthropy was struggling with what it perceived as a role reversal. In addition to the traditional role sustaining voluntary organizations, foundations had seen themselves as a primary source of social risk capital. They would support demonstration projects and other innovations that, if they proved successful, would eventually be adopted by government. As the growth rate of government funding began to decline in the 1970s, foundations found themselves being asked to continue programs that had been initiated by government. Although government and private philanthropy have been unsuccessful in working out any coherent division of labor, the shrinkage of federal budgets has required foundations to reconsider their historic role supporting innovation, and to begin asking questions about exit strategies as they review grant proposals. For Rosenberg Foundation, the changing environment has entailed continuous learning and adjustment. The board and staff of earlier years had taken justifiable pride in the successful pilot projects the Foundation had supported, and the state and federal programs in education, rural housing, healthcare, and children’s services which had resulted. By the mid-1970s, the Foundation board was becoming concerned that the demonstration project approach was losing its effectiveness as government became overwhelmed by demands for new services and constrained by limited budgets. The Foundation adjusted its program by increasing the size of grants and extending their duration, to increase the likelihood that they would successfully demonstrate their value by attracting support from other sources. Within a few years, the Foundation had shifted most of its grantmaking from demonstration projects to projects designed to change
Rosenberg Foundation
Message from the Past President
10
Message from the Past President
continued
public policy. The earliest of these projects were designed to persuade government to modify policies within existing programs. The strategy was to promote government innovations, which would improve programs without increasing budgets. The strategy was modestly effective in changing a small number of niche policies but was ineffective in addressing larger and more fundamental issues of income disparity and immigration in California. Grantmaking programs designed to achieve broad policy changes offered the possibility of far greater impact – what foundations call leverage – and much greater risk of failure. The broad policy projects also required customized program approaches, grants to multiple organizations addressing the same issue, and support over several years. The efforts to address broad policy issues also entailed frequent revision of program strategies as circumstances changed, and great patience as everything took longer than expected and unexpected obstacles arose. In some cases, the broad policy grants also placed the Foundation in an adversarial relationship with interest groups and government agencies. The first of the broad policy projects the Foundation supported – the legalization of the undocumented after the 1986 immigration law – required the development of a statewide service-delivery network, as well as a system of state and federal technical assistance and policy advocacy. The reform of the child support program in California required investment in research, policy advocacy, and communications to mobilize organizations and legislators to adopt comprehensive reform. The successful challenge of the constitutionality of Proposition 187 – the initiative adopted by California voters restricting immigrants’ access to public services – required protracted litigation in state and federal courts. Despite the changes in the external environment for foundations between 1974 and 2005, some things remained unchanged. Foundations remained a mystery to most of the public and subject to very limited public accountability for their performance. While foundations are public in purpose,
11
Rosenberg Foundation has had the good fortune over its 70 years to elect a board of thoughtful, diverse and independent-minded trustees.
they are private in decision-making. They are required to disclose their governance, finances, and charitable activities annually to the government and the public. Apart from the requirement that they use five percent of their assets for charitable purposes each year, foundations have wide latitude to decide what they will do and how they will do it. As part of their annual disclosure, they must list their grantees, grant purposes and amounts, but they have no requirement to justify what they have done, or assess its effectiveness. They do not have shareholders, congregations, alumni or customers to whom they must demonstrate their effectiveness or explain their decisions. The primary source of accountability in foundations is the foundation board. Rosenberg Foundation has had the good fortune over its 70 years to elect a board of thoughtful, diverse, and independent-minded trustees. They have understood the potential that a grantmaking foundation offers for social improvement, and they have recognized that changing circumstances require changes in objectives and strategies. In 225 board meetings between 1974 and 2005, they challenged me, as they had my predecessors, and as I am confident they will challenge my successor. They recognize that doing good in a foundation is easy, but that doing better than good requires creativity, patience, and a willingness to risk failure. Despite changes in the wider environment and the growth in the number and size of foundations, the work of foundations has remained unchanged since the first grantmaking foundations were established in the United States nearly 140 years ago. The work is the considered judgment by board and staff, about people, their ideas and the organizations they lead. It is the opportunity to enable visionary people to achieve their hopes and dreams for a better society. Kirke Wilson President (1974-2005)
Rosenberg Foundation
Message from the Past President
12
Work In Progress
A Portrait of Life in Today’s Central Valley Today, California’s Central Valley is approaching a crossroads as massive new housing developments continue to spring up, entombing the most fertile and productive agricultural land in the United States. This new cash crop – which reflects both the state’s polarized economy and changing demographics – is pushing the resources of the valley to the brink. Issues that have historically divided coastal and inland Californians, such as water rights and air quality, are about to erupt again. Moreover, the composition of the communities involved in these battles is changing rapidly, and old social and economic divisions are becoming more acute. In 2005, the Rosenberg Foundation made two small exploratory grants in order to help assess opportunities for improving the quality of life of this region’s residents, with a special focus on its lowest paid workers. The first grant was to Fresno State University to study what would happen if Fresno, which has the highest per-capita poverty rate in the nation, were to adopt a living wage ordinance. The second grant was to Fotovision, a nonprofit led by Ken and Melanie Light that produces photo documentaries of complex social issues. Photographer Ken Light and writer Melanie Light are working to capture this significant moment in time with intensive documentation that empowers the people of this region to tell their own story through oral histories and still photographs. This project is intended to help illustrate some of the core challenges facing the ‘Great Valley’ and the state as a whole, with the hope of inspiring and informing intelligent solutions. In order to better convey this complex and dynamic story, Ken and Melanie have divided it into four interconnected themes: 1) Affordable Housing, 2) Environmental Health Issues, 3) Land Use, and 4) Immigration.
13
11th and Oller Streets, Mendota, CA. Trailer camp where undocumented workers and their families live. A tenant might pay $300 a month. Hopes for better housing have been dashed as rents have increased 12-15% in the past year. In Tulare County, nearly
Photo © Ken Light, 2006.
9,000 are families waiting for 3,000 “Section 8” units to turn over.
Affordable Housing Rosenberg Foundation
A Portrait of Life
14
Near Washington Road in Merced County, CA. Agricultural field set on fire illegally. This is a common practice to prepare for planting. October is dubbed “Asthma Month” because the air is so polluted from the combination of seasonal weather patterns and the major
Photo © Ken Light, 2006.
valley harvests.
Environmental Health Issues
15
Ward Avenue in Patterson, CA. New tract homes are built at the edge of agricultural land. As new developments cut into the bone of American farmland, many Californians wonder, “What are the
Photo © Ken Light, 2006.
ramifications of becoming dependent on other countries for food?”
Land Use Rosenberg Foundation
A Portrait of Life
16
St. Paul Catholic Church, Tranquility, CA. Quinceañera celebration. The young generation of undocumented workers’ families has one foot
Photo © Ken Light, 2006.
firmly planted in California and one foot firmly planted in Mexico.
Immigration
17
Changing Population of California Program Goal: Promote the full economic, social, and civic integration of immigrants and people of color into a pluralistic society. Program Priorities: Strategies designed to promote change in public policy and private practices regarding immigrant integration through employment, the enforcement of voting and language rights, and effective immigration policy reform.
Immigrant Rights and Immigration Policy: California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Sacramento, CA $375,000 / 2001-2005 Monitoring seasonal farm labor in California and disseminating information about the availability of labor, labor conditions, and proposed guest worker programs to policymakers, advocates, and the general public. Catholic Legal Immigration Network Sacramento, CA $80,000 / 2000-2004 Policy advocacy, training and technical assistance project related to the Affidavit of Support requirementº and Public Charge standard of immigration law.
Chinese for Affirmative Action San Francisco, CA $375,000 / 2001-2005 Statewide project documenting and publicizing barriers to public services for Californians who are not fluent in English, and promoting effective language access policies and programs for state and local government agencies in California. Farmworker Justice Fund (now Farmworker Justice) Washington, DC $775,000 / 2001-2004 Policy advocacy and public education for comprehensive immigration reform, and a fair guestworker policy that would improve the wages, working conditions and rights of farmworkers. $140,000 / 2005 Core support for organization engaged in immigration policy advocacy.
Rosenberg Foundation
Changing Population of California
18
Changing Population of California
continued
Immigrant Legal Resource Center San Francisco, CA
National Immigration Forum Washington, DC
$157,000 / 2002 Policy analysis, training and technical assistance on family immigration and other issues for lawyers, immigration service providers, and community-based organizations.
$25,000 / 2001 Publicizing and distributing a report, the United States-Mexico Study Group on Migration, on migration and related issues to inform elected officials and advocates and stimulate a new approach to US-Mexico relations.
$60,000 / 2005 Core support during an executive director transition and strategic planning process. Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights San Francisco, CA $210,000 / 2001-2004 Policy advocacy and litigation to strengthen immigrants’ rights to higher education, employment, and entrepreneurship opportunities. Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center San Francisco, CA $788,000 / 2000-2005 Representing workers with limited English proficiency in litigation challenging language-based discrimination in employment. Migration Dialogue Davis, CA $25,000 / 2004 Planning conference and follow-up activities to prepare for the possibility of federal legislation creating an earned legalization program for farmworkers.
National Employment Law Project New York, NY $175,000 / 2002-2004 Policy analysis, strategic coordination, legal research and consultation, and grassroots outreach to assist advocates, unions and other organizations to protect immigrant workers’ rights after the United States Supreme Court decision in Hoffman Plastics v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). $2,000 / 2005 Creation of the Litigation Guide for Immigrant Workers’ Advocates to provide guidance to lawyers who represent low-wage immigrant workers on labor and employment issues. National Immigration Law Center Los Angeles, CA $690,000 / 2000-2005 Policy analysis and advocacy, litigation and technical assistance to protect the employment rights of low-wage, immigrant workers. $175,000 / 2002-2004 Policy analysis, strategic coordination, legal research and consultation, and grassroots outreach to assist advocates, unions and other organizations to protect immigrant workers’ rights after the United States Supreme Court decision in Hoffman Plastics v. NLRB. continued on p. 20
19
Immigration Policy: Farmworker Justice For more than 20 years, Farmworker Justice (FJ) has been a national watchdog on labor policies that directly affect farmworkers and other low-wage immigrant workers. Rosenberg Foundation is proud to have supported FJ since 1982, just after its founding. Since 1995, the Foundation’s support has been directed toward enhancing FJ’s ability to fight abuses of the nation’s temporary guestworker programs, and abuses of the workers themselves. FJ’s multifaceted approach deploys impact litigation, policy advocacy, and public education strategies to check abuses in the H-2A (agricultural guestworker) program. Moreover, FJ’s advocates have helped many of our nation’s leaders realize that temporary guestworker programs are no substitute for true immigration reform.
Bruce Goldstein of Farmworker Justice with Congress Member Luis Gutierrez at rally for farmworkers’ rights. Photo by FJ staff
As Congress continues to wrestle with the future of U.S. immigration policy, Farmworker Justice is a key advisor to farmworker and immigrant rights advocates, and Congress members from both major political parties. Moreover, FJ is playing a critical role in maintaining a historic coalition that includes both leading agricultural employers and the United Farm Workers union. Together, these long-time adversaries have become powerful advocates for creating a path to earned legalization for more than 800,000 undocumented farmworkers, and enhancing legal protections for temporary workers.
“Working behind the scenes, unsung, keeping to its mission with great integrity, Farmworker Justice does so much to strengthen the rights of farmworkers – and of other workers in the low-wage, immigrant-dominated economy,” said Catherine Ruckelshaus, litigation director of the National Employment Law Project.
Rosenberg Foundation
Changing Population of California
20
Changing Population of California
National Legal Sanctuary for Community Advancement / A project of Agape Foundation San Francisco, CA $75,000 / 2005 Grant to the Agape Foundation, as fiscal sponsor, for charitable activities addressing discrimination against Middle Eastern/South Asian/North African people in California after September 11, 2001, which were carried out by the National Legal Sanctuary for Community Advancement. Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law Chicago, IL $10,000 / 2004 Publicizing and disseminating a special issue of the Clearinghouse Review’s Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, Emerging Questions in Representing Today’s Low-Income Immigrants. The Urban Institute Washington, DC $270,000 / 2000-2004 A collaboration between The Urban Institute and the University of California, Davis to convene scholars, government officials, journalists, employers, and farmworker advocates to examine the dynamics of immigration and the changing rural economy of California. $35,000 / 2004-2005 Preparing, publishing and disseminating a report on the undocumented population of the United States, to guide legislators and advocates in assessing alternative proposals to legalize undocumented immigrants now in the United States.
continued
Voting Rights: Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California Los Angeles, CA $150,000/ 2000-2002 Redistricting and voting rights project of outreach, public education, technical assistance, and litigation in California to increase the participation of Asian Pacific Island American communities through the reapportionment of federal, state, and local legislative districts after the 2000 Census. Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund Los Angeles, CA $225,000 / 2000-2001 Redistricting and voting rights project of outreach, public education, technical assistance, and litigation to increase the political representation of Latino communities in California through the reapportionment of federal, state, and local legislative districts after the 2000 Census. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense and Education Fund New York, NY $150,000 / 2000-2001 Redistricting and voting rights project of outreach, public education, technical assistance, and litigation to increase the participation of AfricanAmerican communities in California through the reapportionment of federal, state, and local legislative districts after the 2000 Census.
21
National Council of La Raza Washington, DC $325,000 / 2000-2003 Core support for an organization engaged in Latino policy analysis and advocacy in California.
Worker Centers: Asian Law Caucus San Francisco, CA $420,000 / 2000-2004 Policy advocacy, litigation, and public education to improve wages and working conditions in California’s garment industry and other low-wage industries in San Francisco. $80,000 / 2005 Core capacity support.
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA $141,000 / 2000-2002 Assisting immigrant women workers to build leadership skills, protect their rights and advocate for policy changes to improve wages and working conditions for domestic cleaners in Los Angeles. Discrimination Research Center / A project of The Impact Fund Berkeley, CA $50,000 / 2000 Grant to The Impact Fund, as fiscal sponsor, for support of charitable activities documenting the nature and extent of nationality-based employment discrimination in the hospitality industry in the San Francisco Bay Area, which were carried out by the Discrimination Research Center.
Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California Los Angeles, CA
Economic Policy Institute Washington, DC
$540,000 / 2000-2005 Policy advocacy, litigation, and public education to improve wages and working conditions in California’s garment industry.
$25,000 / 2003 Research, publication, and dissemination of the national study and book by Dr. Janice Fine, Worker Centers: Organizing Communities at the Edge of the Dream.
Chinese Progressive Association San Francisco, CA $315,000 / 2001-2004 Strengthening the policy advocacy, organizing capacity, and leadership development of low-wage Chinese immigrant workers in San Francisco through the Workers’ Organizing Center. $75,000 / 2005 Core capacity support. $20,000 / 2005 Technical assistance.
Garment Worker Center / A project of Sweatshop Watch Los Angeles, CA $250,000 / 2001-2005 Grants to Sweatshop Watch, as fiscal sponsor, for support of charitable activities to improve wages and working conditions in the Los Angeles garment industry, which were carried out by the Garment Worker Center. continued on p. 23
Rosenberg Foundation
Changing Population of California
22
Worker Centers: National Day Laborer Organizing Network “They are silent and anonymous, but painfully exposed. They are jeered at by suburbanites, harassed by Minutemen vigilantes, and hounded by communities with police crackdowns, anti-loitering statutes and mass evictions. Contractors cheat them. People beat them up and firebomb their homes.” This July 2006 New York Times editorial about day laborers excerpt reflects the urgent necessity which has fueled the significant growth of the worker center movement in recent years. In 1995, when the Rosenberg Foundation made its first grant in this area, there were 15 centers in the country. Today there are more than 140; 29 in California alone.
Day laborers seeking work in Pasadena. Photo by Jaime Lopez
Rosenberg’s recent support has focused on strengthening California worker centers’ organizational capacity and defending the right for day labor centers to exist. From 2000-2005, the Foundation supported eight worker centers around the state. The centers, which represent low-wage workers in several industries, have successfully gained raises in workers’ wages, recovered substantial back wages owed, and convinced cities and a major retailer to fund day labor centers to provide a place for workers to collaborate in improving their wages and securing more humane treatment.
The Foundation has also supported the National Day Laborer Organizing Network’s efforts to overturn local legal curbs against day laborers’ rights in four southern California counties. While these efforts are ongoing, they have already succeeded in reversing several unconstitutional local ordinances.
23
Changing Population of California
continued
Instituto de Educación Popular del Sur de California Los Angeles, CA
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund Los Angeles, CA
$70,000 / 2004-2005 Labor market research, business planning, and leadership training for immigrant women to launch a worker cooperative for domestic cleaners in Southern California.
$195,000 / 2002-2004 Policy advocacy, organizing, public education, and litigation to advocate for more progressive city day laborer policies, and to challenge ordinances that restrict day laborers from lawfully soliciting work in four Southern California counties.
Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates (now Koreatown Immigrant Workers Advocates) Los Angeles, CA $350,000 / 2000-2004 Research, technical support, and capacity building to assist low-wage, immigrant Korean and Latino restaurant and supermarket workers to organize to protect their rights and improve their economic security in Los Angeles’ Koreatown. $75,000 / 2005 Core support. La Raza Centro Legal San Francisco, CA $230,000 / 2000-2004 Organizing and policy advocacy by the San Francisco Day Labor Worker Center to improve the wages and working conditions, and promote public policies that advance the economic and civil rights of low-wage immigrant workers. $50,000 / 2005 Core support for organization engaged in policy advocacy. $20,000 / 2005 Technical assistance.
Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Worker Organizing Project / A project of Community Partners Los Angeles, CA $100,000 / 2004-2005 Grants to Community Partners, as fiscal sponsor, for support of charitable immigrant leadership development activities, which were carried out by the Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Worker Organizing Network. National Day Laborer Organizing Network / A project of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA $198,000 / 2003-2005 Grants to Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, as fiscal sponsor, for support of charitable activities to defend day laborers’ rights to solicit work in California, which were carried out by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. Oakland Worker Center / A project of Centro Legal de la Raza Oakland, CA $80,000 / 2004-2005 Grants to Centro Legal de la Raza, as fiscal sponsor, for support of charitable activities to create the Oakland Worker Center. Rosenberg Foundation
Changing Population of California
24
Changing Population of California
University of California, Los Angeles – Department of Urban Planning / School of Public Affairs Los Angeles, CA $30,000 / 2005 A sectoral study of the Los Angeles garment industry and the impact of increasing globalization to inform future policy advocacy strategies. University of California, Los Angeles – Institute on Labor and Employment Los Angeles, CA $25,000 / 2003 Convening leaders of California’s worker centers and labor experts to strengthen the effectiveness of the worker center movement.
continued
Women’s Action to Gain Economic Security Oakland, CA $100,000 / 2001-2002 Creating an association of environmentally sound housecleaning cooperatives that provide good jobs, ownership, asset building and leadership development opportunities for low-income immigrant women in the Bay Area.
25
Child Support Reform
Program concluded in 2002
Program Goal: Strengthen the economic security of children, particularly from low-income and single parent families. Program Priorities: Strategies that improve economic security through the development of a system that is effective in establishing paternity, fair in awarding support, efficient in collecting and distributing payments, and builds toward a national program of child support assurance. Association for Children for Enforcement of Support Fredericksburg, VA
Children’s Advocacy Institute Sacramento, CA
$225,000 / 2000-2002 National grassroots organization of custodial parents monitoring the implementation of the state and county reorganization of child support enforcement in California.
$106,000 / 2000-2001 Technical support and assistance to California counties implementing or considering child support assurance pilot projects, and policy advocacy to expand and strengthen child support assurance in California.
California Policy Research Center Berkeley, CA
Harriett Buhai Center for Family Law Los Angeles, CA
$15,000 / 2002 A series of research briefings by national experts advising the California Department of Child Support Services and county child support agency directors.
$268,750 / 2000-2002 Monitoring the performance of the Los Angeles County child support system and advocating for reforms in the program’s reorganization.
Center for Law and Social Policy Washington, DC $200,000 / 2000-2001 Technical support and assistance to California counties implementing or considering child support assurance pilot projects, and policy advocacy to expand and strengthen child support assurance in California.
National Center for Youth Law Oakland, CA $374,055 / 2001-2002 Statewide policy analysis and advocacy project to strengthen California’s new child support system through legal and technical assistance, and monitoring of state and county system performance.
Rosenberg Foundation
Child Support Reform
26
Child Support Reform
continued
National Women’s Law Center Washington, DC
SPHERE Institute Burlingame, CA
$250,000 / 2000-2001 Policy analysis and advocacy to strengthen the national policy context for continued improvement of California’s child support program.
$10,000 / 2000 Facilitating an advisory group to inform the California Department of Child Support Services on the status of collections of child support payments.
Rosenberg Foundation (Direct Charitable Activity) San Francisco, CA $30,000 / 2000 Strengthening the effectiveness of the Foundation’s child support program through expert consultation and convening national, state and local grantees and experts working on child support reform.
27
Child Support Reform: National Center for Youth Law What began in 1993 as a $2 million, four-year Rosenberg Foundation initiative ultimately spanned nine years, disbursed $6 million among 77 grants, and resulted in the complete overhaul of California’s child support system. As a result, child support collections in California have increased by $600 million since 1999 to a new record of $2.2 billion in 2005. National Center for Youth Law’s executive director, John O’Toole, reflected on the initiative, “When we started this advocacy years ago, California ranked near the bottom of states in its collection of child support payments. Rosenberg really understood how to effect systemic change. The Foundation staff knew it would take time, and it funded the right combination of organizations to make it happen: grassroots, state and national polUncle, niece and nephew. Photo provided by National icy expertise, and savvy media support to tell Center for Youth Law our message effectively. With Rosenberg’s steadfast and visionary support, we were able to dramatically improve a statewide system that had failed millions of low-income children in California.” As a July 2002 Sacramento Bee editorial put it, “Sometimes government reform actually works. Child support is one recent happy example.”
Rosenberg Foundation
Child Support Reform
28
Economic Security of Working Families Program Goal: Strengthen the economic well-being of working families. Program Priorities: Strategies that improve economic security through the promotion of public policy and private practices that ensure good jobs and wages, accountable economic development, fair lending practices, and equitable access to the state’s economic mainstream.
Accountable Economic Development and Living Wages:
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy Ventura, CA
California Budget Project Sacramento, CA
$195,000 / 2001-2005 Conducting policy research, public education, and providing technical support for labor/community organizations advocating for living wage standards and accountable economic development policies in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties.
$400,000 / 2001-2005 Conducting research and public education to improve state and local policy regarding the wages and economic security of low-wage workers in California. California State University, Fresno Foundation Fresno, CA $10,000 / 2005 Analysis of the economic impact of establishing a proposed living wage ordinance in Fresno. Center on Policy Initiatives San Diego, CA $475,000 / 2000-2004 Conducting policy research and analysis, public education, and supporting labor/community coalitions to advocate for living wage standards, accountable economic development policies, and community beneďŹ t agreements in San Diego. $75,000 / 2005 Core support for an organization engaged in policy advocacy.
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy Oakland, CA $150,000 / 2002-2004 Conducting policy research and developing community/labor coalitions advocating for accountable economic development policies and community beneďŹ t agreements in the Oakland metropolitan area. $50,000 / 2005 Core support for an organization engaged in policy advocacy. Equal Rights Advocates San Francisco, CA $430,000 / 2001-2005 Impact litigation to increase wages and opportunities of female low-wage workers at Wal-Mart stores and to set a standard throughout the retail
29
industry in which many low-income women, minorities, and immigrants are concentrated.
organizing a conference of organizers, legal service advocates and scholars in California.
International Fund for Photography (dba Fotovision) Orinda, CA
Planada Community Development Corporation Planada, CA
$10,000 / 2005 Documenting current issues affecting low-income workers and their families in the Central Valley of California.
$75,000 / 2000 Community-based planning program to improve the physical infrastructure and economic wellbeing of a small farmworker town in Merced County.
Labor Project for Working Families Berkeley, CA
Planning for Elders in the Central City San Francisco, CA
$361,640 / 2000-2005 Statewide organizing, public education and policy advocacy to improve the wages and working conditions of child care workers in California.
$230,000 / 2000-2003 Policy advocacy and organizing to improve wages, working conditions and leadership development of homecare workers in San Francisco.
Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy Los Angeles, CA
University of California, Berkeley – Center for Labor Research and Education Berkeley, CA
$250,000 / 2000-2004 Conducting policy research and analysis, developing community/labor coalitions, and advocating for accountable economic development and community benefit agreements in Los Angeles. $50,000 / 2005 Core support for an organization engaged in policy advocacy. National Employment Law Project New York, NY $50,000 / 2000 Commissioning research papers on subcontracting and other contingent work arrangements, and
$5,828 / 2005 Kirke Wilson Labor Summer Internship to develop leadership skills of university students to engage in the worker justice movement, and strengthen the capacity of local worker justice organizations. Urban Strategies Council Oakland, CA $50,000 / 2004 Providing research and technical support for the Oak to 9th Community Benefits Campaign to ensure that low-income communities benefit from
Rosenberg Foundation
Economic Security
30
Economic Security of Working Families
continued
a large-scale economic development project in Oakland.
California Reinvestment Coalition San Francisco, CA
$50,000 / 2005 Core support for an organization engaged in policy advocacy.
$100,000 / 2000-2001 Public education, policy advocacy, and research to increase access to lending and economic development for California’s low-income communities.
Working Partnerships San Jose, CA
$1,400 / 2005 Website redesign project.
$100,000 / 2000-2001 Improving wages, benefits and career prospects for temporary workers in Silicon Valley through organizing, policy advocacy and creating access to job training and portable benefits. Young Workers United / A project of Center for Labor Research and Training San Francisco, CA
Community Development Finance Berkeley, CA $78,000 / 2005 Developing a low-fee, non-profit alternative to usurious finance companies serving low-and moderate-income people in the San Francisco Bay Area.
$170,000 / 2002-2005 Grants to Center for Labor Research and Training, as fiscal sponsor, for charitable activities to improve the wages and working conditions of young workers in the restaurant and retail industries in the San Francisco Bay Area, which were carried out by Young Workers United.
Pacific News Service San Francisco, CA
Fair Lending and Asset Protection:
Welfare Reform:
California Community Economic Development Association San Francisco, CA $300,000 / 2000-2003 Strengthening and expanding Individual Development Account (IDA) programs in California, providing technical support, and developing a broad coalition of organizations concerned with economic justice issues.
$10,000 / 2005 Supporting the collaboration of New California Media and the California Reinvestment Coalition to increase the awareness of ethnic media regarding predatory lending practices.
Alameda County Community Food Bank Alameda, CA $30,000 / 2000-2001 Policy advocacy and community outreach for Alameda County’s Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system to ensure that it meets the needs of low-income food stamp and cash assistance recipients, and the development of a manual to assist other California counties’ implementation plans. continued on p. 32
31
Accountable Economic Development: Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy In 1997, the Rosenberg Foundation supported a little-known group called the Tourism Industry Development Council, which was researching public subsidies supporting much of Los Angeles’ private economic development. That group became the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) – a dynamic organization that is now shaping public policies and private economic development practices in L.A. and throughout California. As Eric Garcetti, president of the L.A. City Council, observes, “LAANE has started a quiet common sense revolution that has changed the way cities think about economic development. And they’ve done it by asking a simple question: who should benefit? Today we make sure developers understand that an attractive project, whether retail, industrial or residential, must create good jobs at living wages and affordable housing. When done right, there’s no trade-off: business, workers and residents all gain together.” Combining policy research, communications, organizing and multi-ethnic coalition building, LAANE has spearheaded many Reverend Altagracia Perez at a press conference for L.A. Superstore Ordinance. Photo provided by successful economic justice campaigns in LAANE stuff Los Angeles. Highlights between 2000 and 2005 include: crafting ground breaking community benefits agreements with developers of the new Staples Center and the Los Angeles International Airport expansion, and the defeat of WalMart’s attempt to usurp local land use power in Inglewood. LAANE is working to build a robust movement for more democratic and equitable development in California in coalition with its sister organizations: the Center on Policy Initiatives in San Diego, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy in Oakland, Working Partnerships USA in San Jose, and the closely-allied networks, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice – California and the national Partnership for Working Families.
Rosenberg Foundation
Economic Security
32
Economic Security of Working Families
California Childcare Providers in Action (formerly a project of Los Angeles ACORN) San Francisco, CA $205,000 / 2000-2004 Policy advocacy and organizing to improve the rights, wages and working conditions of Los Angeles’ Community Service Workfare workers and child care workers, who are subsidized by the state to provide childcare to low-income families. Center for Community Change Washington, DC $717,500 / 2000-2005 Expanding the capacity and collaboration of organizations in California to build an anti-poverty movement to advance income support and other policies. Centro La Familia Fresno, CA $5,000 / 2001 Policy advocacy and outreach to educate and enable the community to advocate for changes in the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) program in Fresno. Consumers Union San Francisco, CA $337,000 / 2000-2004 Policy advocacy and monitoring the implementation of the EBT program in California, and assisting community–based organizations to participate in designing systems that meet the needs of lowincome residents of California’s 58 counties.
continued
Eden Information & Referral Hayward, CA $25,000 / 2001 Policy advocacy and outreach project to inform and enable the community to advocate for changes in the EBT program in Alameda County. Fresno Metropolitan Ministry Fresno, CA $5,000 / 2001 Policy advocacy and outreach project to inform and enable the community to advocate for changes in the EBT program in Fresno County. Homeless Action Center Berkeley, CA $5,000 / 2001 Policy advocacy and monitoring the statewide EBT program, and assisting community-based organizations to participate in designing the system to meet the needs of low-income users in California. Human Services Alliance Los Angeles, CA $120,000 / 2000 Organizing a countywide coalition of communitybased social service providers and monitoring the performance of the CalWORKS program in Los Angeles County. Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center San Francisco, CA $163,434 / 2001 Improving wages and full employment status for participants in California workfare programs and for workers who are subsidized to provide childcare for low-income families.
33
Public Counsel Los Angeles, CA
Other Economic Security Grants:
$95,000 / 2000 Monitoring the performance of proprietary trade schools providing job training for people transitioning off welfare through a program of consumer education, government agency education and client legal representation.
Butler-Koshland Fund San Francisco, CA
Sacramento Valley Organizing Community Sacramento, CA $165,000 / 2000-2001 Grassroots organizing project serving welfare-towork and low-wage immigrant workers in Solano County. Strategic Actions for a Just Economy Los Angeles, CA $375,000 / 2000-2002 Policy advocacy to implement direct deposit of welfare checks to provide an alternative to costly check cashing outlets and introduce welfare recipients to mainstream banking opportunities. Western Center on Law and Poverty Los Angeles, CA $400,000 / 2000-2003 Monitoring the federal reauthorization of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Program and its implementation in California.
$25,000 / 2002 Partial support of a donor-advised fund established at San Francisco Foundation, in honor of Lew Butler and Dan Koshland, for grants supporting diversity and justice. Common Sense California / A project of Civic Ventures San Francisco, CA $5,000 / 2005 Grant to Civic Ventures, as fiscal sponsor, for charitable activities bringing together community and business leaders across party lines to develop solutions for long-term structural problems facing California, which were carried out by Common Sense California. Discrimination Research Center / A project of The Impact Fund Berkeley, CA $150,000 / 2005 Grant to The Impact Fund, as fiscal sponsor, for a study on the impact of Proposition 209 on contracts awarded by the California Department of Transportation, publicizing the findings, and broadening consensus about possible reforms, which were carried out by the Discrimination Research Center.
Rosenberg Foundation
Economic Security
34
Economic Security of Working Families
continued
Equal Justice Society San Francisco, CA
Public Interest Projects New York, NY
$10,000 / 2005 A communications strategy to publicize litigation against Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for its neglect of poor, primarily AfricanAmerican and immigrant victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, to rectify alleged discrimination in providing beneďŹ ts, and to ensure that FEMA provides equal protection to all victims of future disasters.
$100,000 / 2005 Supporting the California Regional FulďŹ lling the Dream Fund, a funding collaborative examining the impact of Proposition 209, and identifying potential private practices and public policies to increase diversity in public employment, contracting and higher education.
35
Anti-Discrimination Litigation: Equal Rights Advocates Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), together with The Impact Fund and a private law firm, have brought litigation challenging Wal-Mart’s discrimination against its female employees. Rosenberg Foundation is an early and ongoing financial supporter of the case. The largest civil rights class action in history, it aims to deliver higher wages for millions of lowincome women and fundamentally change the way the largest employer in the world treats its workers. Three years after filing the lawsuit, the firms won a key ruling in federal court certifying a class of 1.6 million current and former female employees of Wal-Mart. As federal Judge Martin Jenkins commented in his ruling in 2004, “[It] is interesting to note, as a matter of historical perspective, that Plaintiffs’ request for class certification is being ruled upon in a year that marks the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. That anniversary serves as a reminder of the importance of the courts in addressing the denial of equal treatment under the law wherever and by whomever it occurs.” Whatever the ultimate outcome, this case has already resulted in positive changes for women working at Wal-Mart. The company created a new posting system, opening up opportunities for management positions previously closed to most women, and made an across-theboard increase in women’s wages that reduced the existing pay disparity for women by approximately 60 percent.
Betty Dukes and Chris Kwapnoski, plaintiffs in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores. Photo provided by The Impact Fund
Rosenberg Foundation
Economic Security
36
Promoting Effective Philanthropy Rosenberg Foundation has a longstanding commitment to the advancement of philanthropy and the promotion of effective and responsible practices in the field. Through membership contributions and grants, Rosenberg Foundation supports organizations that strengthen the nonprofit sector’s influence on public policy and increase foundations’ understanding of the rules governing nonprofit advocacy. The Foundation has been a member of the Council on Foundations since 1962, Northern California Grantmakers and its predecessor organizations since 1973, Independent Sector since it was formed in 1980, and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy since 1983. The Foundation has contributed to the Foundation Center since 1972.
Alliance for Justice Washington, DC
Bay Area Blacks in Philanthropy San Francisco, CA
$150,000 / 2000-2005 Providing training and technical assistance to nonprofits on advocacy rules and broadening foundations’ understanding of the ways in which they can support policy advocacy by their grantees.
$1,000 / 2005 Promoting increased awareness in philanthropy of the needs of black Americans. Brennan Center for Justice New York, NY
Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy San Francisco, CA
$20,000 / 2002-2003 Litigation challenging restrictions on the activities of grantees of the federal Legal Services Corporation.
$6,000 / 2000-2005 Promoting increased awareness in philanthropy of the needs of Asian American and Pacific Islander communities.
Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest Washington, DC
Association of Black Foundation Executives San Francisco, CA $1,000 / 2005 Promoting increased awareness in philanthropy of the needs of black Americans.
$55,000 / 2001-2005 Encouraging and assisting charitable organizations to strengthen the effectiveness of their programs by using the lobbying rights allowed by federal law. continued on p. 38
37
Nonprofit Advocacy Rights: Alliance for Justice Effective nonprofit advocacy plays a critical role in improving the lives of working Californians and the communities in which we all live and work. For a decade, the Rosenberg Foundation has supported the Alliance for Justice’s role as a watchdog for nonprofits’ rights, monitoring federal proposals that would limit nonprofit advocacy, and keeping the sector informed through timely advisories. “Too often, nonprofit organizations are the only voices speaking for the public interest against well-funded corporate and special interests,” explains Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice. The Alliance’s practical publications, comprehensive workshops, and technical assistance have enabled Rosenberg grantees and other nonprofits to win local living wage policies, successfully press for labor rights enforcement, and push through other wide-ranging policy reforms – without jeopardizing their nonprofit status.
Protester outside Federal Election Commission hearing. Photo provided by Alliance for Justice staff
During 2000-2005, Rosenberg supported the Alliance for Justice’s development of Investing in Change: A Funder’s Guide to Advocacy and its wide dissemination. Program officers from more than 275 foundations have been trained in how to use the Guide in strategic decision-making, and the project has increased the comfort level among many foundations for making grants to advocacy organizations.
“The Guide has been a particularly valuable tool for program officers when reviewing proposals from advocacy organizations and talking to potential advocacy grantees about their work and what they hope to accomplish,” said Ruth Holton, director of public policy for the California Wellness Foundation.
Rosenberg Foundation
Promoting Effective Philanthropy
38
Promoting Effective Philanthropy
CompassPoint Nonprofit Services San Francisco, CA $50,000 / 2000 Survey of trends in workforce recruitment and retention among San Francisco Bay Area nonprofits, and strategies to address labor shortages and the health of the nonprofit sector. Council on Foundations Washington, DC $41,020 / 2000-2005 Support for its national program promoting effective philanthropy. First Nations Development Institute New York, NY $50,000 / 2001 Strengthening tribal sovereignty through the development of models of tribal philanthropy in California. The Foundation Center New York, NY $108,000 / 2000-2005 National and Bay Area programs for publications and library services to assist grantseekers. Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues New York, NY $1,000 / 2005 Promoting increased awareness in philanthropy of the needs of lesbian and gay communities. Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees / (Until 2005, a project of Northern California Grantmakers) Sebastopol, CA $16,500 / 2000-2005
continued
Promoting increased awareness within philanthropy of both the contributions and needs of immigrants and refugees, and related policy issues. Grantmakers for Children, Youth and Families Washington, DC $2,000 / 2000-2001 Promoting awareness among grantmakers of the needs of children and youth. Grants Managers Network / A project of Rockefeller Family Fund New York, NY $6,000 / 2000-2005 Grants to Rockefeller Family Fund, as fiscal sponsor, for charitable activities promoting effective grants management policies and foundation practices, which were carried out by the Grants Managers Network. Hispanics in Philanthropy San Francisco, CA $9,000 / 2000-2005 Promoting awareness among grantmakers of the needs of Latino communities. Independent Sector Washington, DC $26,670 / 2000-2005 Advancing the common good by leading, strengthening, and mobilizing the charitable community. Kovno Communications Berkeley, CA $10,000 / 2005 Completion and distribution of the Soul of Justice, a documentary on the life and contributions of former Rosenberg Foundation Trustee, Honorable Judge Thelton E. Henderson.
39
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy Washington, DC $45,000 / 2000-2005 Promoting responsiveness and accountability in philanthropic institutions. Neighborhood Funders Group Washington, DC $17,500 / 2000-2005 Raising awareness and promoting strategies to strengthen the social and economic fabric of lowincome communities, and supporting the Working Group on Labor and Communities. Northern California Grantmakers San Francisco, CA/ 2000-2005 $38,573 – General support $42,000 – Emergency Loan Fund $75,000 – Summer Youth Project Promoting and improving organized philanthropy in Northern California. Rosenberg Foundation (Direct Charitable Activity) San Francisco, CA $25,000 / 2002-2003 Printing and publication of a book on the life and times of Ruth Chance, the second executive director of Rosenberg Foundation, serving from 1959 to 1974. Rosenberg Foundation (Direct Charitable Activity) San Francisco, CA $20,000 / 2001 Training on nonprofit advocacy rights for the Foundation’s grantees, by the Alliance for Justice.
San Francisco Human Services Network San Francisco, CA $75,000 / 2000-2005 Core support for a coalition of 60 health and human service agencies organized to strengthen the nonprofit service sector in San Francisco and improve its relationships with city government. San Francisco Study Center San Francisco, CA $10,000 / 2001 Developing a business plan for the News for People in Community Service, a newspaper for and about Bay Area nonprofits. The Management Center San Francisco, CA $10,000 / 2000 Support for a conference on public policy and San Francisco nonprofits. Women & Philanthropy Washington, DC $6,000 / 2000-2005 Promoting grantmaking to benefit women and girls, and increase leadership opportunities for women within the field of philanthropy. University of California, Berkeley – Boalt Hall School of Law Berkeley, CA $100,000 / 2001 Creation of an endowment for the Ruth Chance Social Justice Speaker Series at Boalt Hall School of Law’s Center for Social Justice.
Rosenberg Foundation
Promoting Effective Philanthropy
40
Message from the Treasurer Like many charitable institutions, the Rosenberg Foundation’s investment portfolio shrank considerably in the early years of the period covered by this report. At the end of 2000, the Foundation’s endowment stood at approximately $72,640,000. However, two years later, owing to the downturn in the economy, it dropped to about $53,822,000. As the economy improved, the Foundation’s holdings recovered. By the end of 2005, the value of the endowment was more than $60,137,000. During the lean years, the Foundation’s directors made the decision to reduce the annual grants budget from $4,000,000 to $2,616,000. This was done to preserve the value of the endowment and the Foundation’s ability to support the efforts of future generations of Californians dedicated to working for a more socially, politically, and economically inclusive state and nation. The primary goal of the Foundation’s investment policies is to maximize the resources available to support charitable activities. Accordingly, the directors of the Foundation have adopted an expenditure policy that results in an average annual payout, which exceeds the 5 percent minimum required by federal law.
41
The primary goal of the Foundation’s investment policies is to maximize the resources available to support charitable activities.
The Rosenberg Foundation endowment is supervised by a Finance Committee of the Foundation board, which establishes investment policies and supervises the Foundation’s investment managers. The core endowment of the Foundation is invested in a diversified portfolio of equities and fixed-income securities by the investment firm, Wentworth, Hauser, and Violich, based in San Francisco. The Foundation also allocates a small portion of the portfolio to specialty managers. The Finance Committee meets periodically with the core managers to review investment performance, and engages outside advisors to assist with the process from time to time. While delegating the authority for individual investment decisions to the investment managers, the directors retain ultimate responsibility for investment policy. The Finance Committee and the investment managers are accountable to the full Board, which understands that the future charitable effectiveness of the Rosenberg Foundation depends on the careful stewardship of the institution’s assets. Hugo Morales Treasurer, 2005
Rosenberg Foundation
Message from the Treasurer
42
Financial Statements Statements of Financial Position December 31, 2005 and 2004
2005
2004
Assets Cash and cash equivalents Accrued interest receivable
$ 1,290,933
$
203,188
211,497
256,698
Common stocks
39,441,751
35,442,805
Bonds
14,472,392
14,206,530
4,466,638
10,564,753
226,994
199,773
26,961
41,216
$ 60,137,166
$ 60,914,963
$ 2,466,890
$ 1,268,662
137,355
53,154
2,604,245
1,321,816
57,532,208
59,592,563
713
584
57,532,921
59,593,147
$ 60,137,166
$ 60,914,963
Investments (Note 3):
Mutual funds Partnership interests Other assets (Note 4) Total assets Liabilities and Net Assets Grants payable (Note 5) Accounts payable and accrued expenses Total liabilities Net assets: Unrestricted Temporarily restricted (Note 9) Total net assets Total liabilities and net assets
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these ďŹ nancial statements.
43
Statements of Activities 2005
Years Ended December 31, 2005 and 2004
2004
Investment revenue and other additions: Dividends
$
779,801
$
Interest and other income
741,588
Income (loss) from partnerships
(33,874)
921,901 801,942 4,446
Realized and unrealized gain/loss on investments (Note 3)
1,291,797
3,456,654
2,779,312
5,184,943
4,299,445
3,003,506
540,222
581,493
Total expenses
4,839,667
3,584,999
Change in unrestricted net assets
(2,060,355)
1,599,944
Total investment revenue and other additions Expenses: Program services Management and general
Change in temporarily restricted net assets: Other (Note 9)
129
31
Change in net assets
(2,060,226)
1,599,975
Net assets, beginning of year
59,593,147
57,993,172
$ 57,532,921
$ 59,593,147
Net assets, end of year The accompanying notes are an integral part of these ďŹ nancial statements.
Rosenberg Foundation
Financial Statements
44
Financial Statements
continued
Statements of Cash Flows 2005
Years Ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 Cash flows from investing activities: Purchase of investments
$ (24,844,523)
Sale of investments
2004 $ (11,613,313)
27,877,623
13,872,707
3,033,100
2,259,394
Grants paid
(2,463,600)
(3,069,850)
Expenses paid
(1,079,383)
(981,604)
Net cash provided by investing activities Cash flows from operating activities:
Interest, dividends and investment distributions received Other operating activities Net cash used in operating activities
–
10 (2,312,893)
1,087,745
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
1,738,551
(1,945,355)
Net increase (decrease) in cash Cash and cash equivalents, end of year
1,597,628
(53,499)
203,188 $
1,290,933
256,687 $
203,188
45
Notes to Financial Statements Note 1 Organization and Nature of Activities Rosenberg Foundation (the Foundation) is a private, grant-making foundation established in 1935 by the will of Max L. Rosenberg. The Foundation makes grants to charitable organizations for new and innovative projects in California and operates direct charitable activities relating to families in poverty and to the changing population of California. The Foundation is exempt from federal income taxes under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and the related California code sections.
Note 2 Summary of Significant Account Policies Accounting Method The Foundation uses the accrual method of accounting, which recognizes income in the period earned and expenses when incurred, regardless of the timing of payments. Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial
Years Ended December 31, 2005 and 2004
statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Basis of Presentation The Foundation reports information regarding its financial position and activities according to three classes of net assets as applicable: unrestricted net assets, temporarily restricted net assets and permanently restricted net assets. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, the Foundation had no permanently restricted net assets. Revenue Recognition Contributions are recognized as revenue when they are unconditionally communicated. Contributions are recorded at their fair value as unrestricted support or temporarily restricted support, depending on the absence or existence of donor-imposed restrictions as applicable. When a restriction expires (that is when a stipulated time restriction ends or purpose restriction is accomplished), temporarily restricted net assets are reclassified to unrestricted net assets and reported in the Statements of Activities as net assets released from restrictions. The Foundation did not receive any contribution during 2005 or 2004, and does not typically receive contributions. Cash and Cash Equivalents Cash is defined as cash in demand deposit accounts as well as cash on hand. Cash equivalents are highly liquid investments that are readily convertible to known amounts of cash. Generally, only investments with original maturities of
Rosenberg Foundation
Notes to Financial Statements
46
Notes to Financial Statements
continued
three months or less qualify as cash equivalents. The Foundation from time to time maintains cash on deposit at various banks in excess of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation limit ($100,000) and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation limit ($500,000). The uninsured cash balance, as reported by the banks (not including outstanding checks) was approximately $683,000 as of December 31, 2005. The Foundation has not experienced any losses in such accounts. Management believes that it is not exposed to any significant cash credit risk. Investments Investments in stocks, bonds and mutual funds are stated at fair value, determined by quoted market prices. Investments in limited partnerships are stated at fair value as determined by the general partner. Investment Income and Gains Interest income, realized and unrealized gains or losses on investments are recognized when earned or incurred. Dividend income is recorded when received. Investment income and gains restricted by donors are reported as increases in unrestricted net assets if the restrictions are met (that is when a stipulated time restriction ends or purpose restriction is accomplished) in the reporting period in which the income and gains are recognized. Property and Equipment Property and equipment is stated at cost of acquisition or fair value if donated. The costs of maintenance and repairs are charged to expense as incurred. Depreciation is computed based on
the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets. The useful lives of the assets are estimated as follows: Furniture and equipment 5 years Leasehold improvements 5 years Grants Payable Grants payable represent all unconditional grants that have been authorized prior to year-end, but remain unpaid as of the statement of financial position date. Grants of more than $10,000 are considered to be authorized after approval by the Foundation’s board of directors. Grants of $10,000 or less may be approved by the president directly and reported at the next board meeting. Functional Expense Allocation The costs of providing program services and supporting services are summarized on a functional basis in the Statements of Activities. Accordingly, certain costs are allocated among program services and management and general based on estimates of employees’ time incurred and on usage of resources. Included in the expenses allocated to program services are staff time and other resources devoted to making grants and performing direct charitable activities. Staff time and other resources devoted to managing investments and the Foundation’s annual federal excise taxes are allocated to management and general expenses. Reclassification Certain amounts previously reported in the 2004 financial statements were reclassified to conform to the 2005 presentation for comparative purposes.
47
Note 3 Investments Investments at December 31, 2005 and 2004 are summarized as follows: 2005 2004 Cost Fair Value Cost Fair Value Common stocks $ 28,796,929 $ 39,441,751 $ 20,537,233 $ 35,442,805 Bonds 14,742,345 14,472,392 14,006,402 14,206,530 Mutual funds 3,326,979 4,466,638 8,254,554 10,564,753 Partnership interests 318,909 226,994 368,300 199,773 Total investments $ 47,185,162 $ 58,607,775 $ 43,166,489 $ 60,413,861 Net realized and unrealized gain/loss on investments totaled $1,291,797 and $3,456,654 in 2005 and 2004, respectively.
Note 4 Other Assets Other assets include property and equipment and prepaid expenses and are summarized as follows:
Less accumulated depreciation
2005 $ 75,204 211,729 286,933 (272,100)
2004 $ 73,084 211,729 284,813 (246,166)
Subtotal – property and equipment Prepaid expenses Total other assets
14,833 12,128 $ 26,961
38,647 2,569 $ 41,216
Furniture and equipment Leasehold improvements
Note 5 Grants Authorized The Foundation authorized a total of $3,661,828 and $2,555,600 (net of cancelled grants of $25,000) in grants in 2005 and 2004, respectively, to various not-for-proďŹ t organizations. The listing of the organizations is included as supplementary information.
Rosenberg Foundation
Notes to Financial Statements
48
Notes to Financial Statements
continued
Grants are payable based on the terms of each grant agreement, which may be paid over several years. Grants payable are summarized as follows: Balance at December 31, 2005 2004 Amounts due in: Less than one year $ 2,041,890 $ 768,662 One to three years 425,000 500,000 $ 2,466,890 $ 1,268,662
Note 6 Pension Plan The Foundation provides retirement benefits through an annuity contract with Teacher’s Insurance and Annuity Association/College Retirement Equity Fund (TIAA/CREF). The Foundation contributes an amount equivalent to 10% of an employee’s base salary after one year if the employee is contributing at a level of 5% or more of their base salary. In cases when a new employee has a TIAA/CREF fund at the previous employer, then the Foundation will contribute from the hiring date, if the employee contributes 5% or more. All employees can participate in the plan from their hiring date and are immediately and fully vested. The Foundation contributed $36,066 and $38,765 to the plan during 2005 and 2004, respectively.
Note 7 Operating Lease The Foundation leases office space in San Francisco under a lease expiring in March 2006. Effective April 1, 2006, the Foundation entered into a new office lease agreement in San Francisco. The lease agreement terminates in March 2013. Future minimum annual lease payments under these operating leases are as follows: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Thereafter
$ 63,666 60,020 64,522 70,524 72,024 174,059 $ 504,815
Rent expense for 2005 and 2004 was $85,540 and $84,426, respectively.
Note 8 Federal Excise Tax The Foundation is subject to excise tax on investment income and capital gains, reduced by expenses relating to the production of investment income. The excise tax rate was 2% and 1% in 2005 and 2004, respectively. Federal excise tax expense was $160,075 and $62,042 in 2005 and 2004, respectively.
49
Note 9 Temporarily Restricted Assets The temporarily restricted net assets are for the following purposes or periods:
2005 Twentieth Century Gift Trust (1)
December 31, 2004 $ 584
Interest Income $ 129
Releases from December 31, Restrictions 2005 $– $ 713
2004 Twentieth Century Gift Trust (1)
December 31, 2003 $ 553
Interest Income $ 31
Releases from December 31, Restrictions 2004 $– $ 584
(1) This represents present interest in an irrevocable trust, invested in shares of Twentieth Century Gift Trust. The trustee of the trust shall reinvest all net income in additional shares of the trust and shall pay over the trust estate and accumulated income to the Foundation at maturity, in the year 2138.
Note 1o Additional Financial Information The change in net assets is reconciled to cash ows from operating activities for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 as follows:
Change in net assets Adjustments to reconcile changes in net assets to net cash used in operating activities: Unrealized loss on investments Realized gain on investments Other noncash income and expenses Decrease in assets: Receivables and other Increase (decrease) in liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued expenses Grants payable
2005 $ (2,060,226)
5,824,888 (7,116,685) 48,296
2004 $ 1,599,975
996,922 (4,453,576) 22,071
75,943 84,201 1,198,228 $ (1,945,355)
43,811 (7,846) (514,250) $ (2,312,893)
Rosenberg Foundation
Notes to Financial Statements
50
How to Apply Please visit the Rosenberg Foundation website at
www.rosenfound.org for current grant summaries, details on applying for grants, recent IRS 990-PF documents, and audited ďŹ nancial statements.
Printed with vegetable oil inks on processed chlorine free paper 100% post-consumer waste content by Inkworks Press, a worker-owned collective