Youth-led grant making programs have existed for several decades. The publication, Scanning the Landscape of Youth Philanthropy, authored by Jen Bokoff and Amanda Dillon in 2014 at the Foundation Center (now Candid), was one of the seminal works of research on the topic. Currently, there are 368 community-based youth grant making programs in the United states of which 215 are sponsored by community foundations, according to their most recent findings. They found that these programs have provided thousands of teens around the country with opportunities to learn about their community and its needs and to experience real-world philanthropic decision making. The scope and scale of such programs vary depending on the resources available, both human and financial, including the amount of funds available for grants. But where these programs exist, they are quite well-received by the community and they demonstrate how teens can be engaged in community philanthropy. They also reveal one of the foundation’s fundamental purposes, “Inspiring Giving”, and its commitment to preparing the next generation of philanthropy leaders. In this time of national crisis, we need them more than ever.

So, why is it that only one out of four community foundations nationwide have a youth grant making program? As uncomplicated as the format may appear, the truth is that running a youth philanthropy program can be challenging. The idea that grant making done by adults can be adapted to grant making done by youth is not only plausible, it is in perfect alignment with what community foundations do best. The rationale for such a program is sound. It is the implementation, however, that can be troublesome.

Only about 25% of the community foundations nationwide have a youth-led grant making program

Over the past six months, two of our Three Pillars Initiative program officers, Maggie Healy and Remy Sheehan, have talked with over 400 community foundations from coast to coast about youth philanthropy. They contacted foundations that have a youth grant making program, foundations who had a program but discontinued it, and foundations who never had one. Through these conversations, several common themes emerged around the challenges of running such programs.

The majority of programs are led by a foundation staff member whose job description is dominated by other responsibilities. This results in dividing time between the youth grant making program and other duties, many with fixed deadlines. It is a constant balancing act. In lean organizations, staff are stretched to achieve multiple goals and milestones, each of which competes for attention with the youth program. Typically, only one staff member is assigned to the program, so when conflicts arise a backup must be willing to jump in.
Changes in program staffing, whether through attrition or re-alignment of duties, can disrupt program consistency. Staff turnover has several negative effects. The way the program is delivered can vary widely from staff member to staff member, particularly in community foundations that do not have written guidelines or do not effectively keep track of historical files and procedures. Changes in senior management positions that supervise youth program staff may be accompanied by changes in the duties of such staff. Additionally, the relationship between the students and the new staff member may change the group dynamics as well as the level of student participation.
The quality of the learning experience depends on the staff member’s knowledge and background. Staff assigned to the program are often those who have the shortest tenure as an employee and likely the least experience in grant making. This is often exacerbated by the absence of experience working with teens. The collision of these factors can degrade the learning outcomes and can negatively affect the program’s “creds” in the eyes of the students.
The most common reason why a youth grants program was discontinued was that staff were not able to maintain it. This can be directly attributed to the previous three points. Discontinuance of a primary funding source was another but less frequently mentioned reason.
Lack of available staff and the absence of sufficient funding are the two biggest roadblocks to starting a program. Listening to dozens of grants and program officers across the country, without the time and without the money, the two most fungible commodities, the program is a non-starter. Interestingly, the scope and scale of the community foundation is not a factor. It would seem axiomatic that the larger the foundation’s assets, the larger the staff size, and therefore the more likely a youth grant making program would exist. We didn’t find a correlation. In our analysis, a foundation with, say, $20 million in assets and a staff of 2 is no less likely to have a program than one with $500 million and a staff of 50.

For at least the past 20 years, these persistent obstacles have been holding back 75% of community foundations nationwide from running a viable youth philanthropy education program. It has resulted in lost opportunities for community foundations to more broadly illustrate their value and purpose. Without the program, significant longer-term repercussions affecting the future of philanthropy, in the hands of the next generation, are likely to emerge. It doesn’t need to be that way.

One thing seems obvious. If we hope to change this situation, we need a new game plan. We need a new paradigm, a “Youth Grant Making 2.0” model, as it were, with a more workable solution to both the human and financial barriers. For the past 10 years, one community foundation in Illinois has been demonstrating such a paradigm. It has been utilizing its major donors and fundholders to run and fund the program, without being staffed by or funded by the foundation. It’s a model worth sharing.

In 2010, the Future Philanthropists Program (FPP), sponsored by the Oak Park-River Forest Community Foundation, faced the same kind of time and money challenges as other foundations. It had few but very busy employees and the strategic plan did not include financial resources for youth philanthropy. Necessity being the mother of invention, a few board members began to explore an alternative program design that would engage selected donors and fundholders, as volunteers, to run it rather than Foundation staff.

With that concept in mind, they approached additional Foundation stakeholders on two levels: 1) their interest in providing startup funding for the program and 2) their interest in running the program as volunteers. Three major donors stepped up immediately, on both levels. They had all been active in the community as board leaders and as donors and they had knowledge of the local nonprofit scene. They were also eager to work with teens around charitable giving.

It quickly became apparent that in order for these “donor-volunteers” to run the program, some sort of curriculum and training on best practices and processes in effective grant making would be needed. With Foundation staff assistance, one of the Foundation’s major donors, a career charitable sector executive, wrote program guidelines and lesson plans. It was accompanied by instructions for donor-volunteers on how to facilitate the process using guided interaction models, student handouts, simulation exercises and a philanthropy syllabus.

“The minute we began thinking about this program as a donor development strategy and not just a grant making endeavor, things really started to click.”
- Joe Smith, Program Mentor

Ten years ago, that first FPP cohort consisted of 12 teens and 3 donor-volunteers (now called program mentors) who would gather monthly to learn about philanthropy and to carry out the curriculum-based learning experience leading to the distribution of $25,000 in grants. Today, the program consists of 50-55 students each year and 12 program mentors, most of whom have re-upped year after year. These mentors have become as skilled in grant making as the Foundation’s own program staff. And they love to share these best practices with the teens.

“I’ve been involved in charitable activities my entire adult life, but I never considered myself experienced enough to tell someone how to make grants”, said Justin Lewis, a Microsoft executive now in his eighth year as a mentor. “With the curriculum, not only can I help my team of students understand it, I can share my own philanthropic experiences and ideas with them and hopefully be a positive role model.”

Some FPP mentors have their own family foundations and are very familiar with the grant making process, particularly those who have the benefit of staff assistance. Their direct experience provides teen participants with an even greater level of knowledge.

“In my grant making experience with FPP, there’s really no difference in how adults reach a consensus on what to fund and how youth reach a consensus on what to fund”, said Scott Moller, a program mentor who with his wife, Julie, manage their own family foundation’s philanthropy. “That shouldn’t be surprising because we are both using the same playbook. And the curriculum is ever evolving. That’s what keeps mentors at the forefront.”

Years before donor development became a high-level foundation objective, grant making was ostensibly the only function it served. The administrative time absorbed by distributing, recording and reporting on these transactions significantly reduced the amount of staff time devoted to donors. It was during that era when youth granting making programs made their debut. It was about grants, not donors.

“That thinking could have gotten us off track”, said Joe Smith, a mentor since the inception of FPP. “But, the minute we began thinking about this program as a donor development strategy and not just a grant making endeavor, things really started to click”. As a former pharmaceutical company executive, his knack for thinking out of the box brought clarity to the donor-volunteer paradigm. “They say that the more an organization actively engages donors in activities that have meaning to them, the more likely the donor will stay with that organization and the relationship will become even stronger. That certainly is my story”. Joe and his wife, Annalynn, who has also served as a program mentor, established their first donor advised fund to support the program four years ago.

At the end of each program year, the mentors and students make their plans for an annual capstone ceremony in May. This celebratory event which is held at a local university auditorium recognizes the work of the teens and the work of the community agencies they fund. It is also a time when the mentors are publicly recognized and applauded for their investment of time and treasurer. It also illustrates that the program will operate in perpetuity under their leadership.

“The fact that we can show the community how donors are so much more than the checks they write, that they can very directly impact the lives of the next generation of leaders, is huge,” echoed Karen Tardy, FPP’s program coordinator and mentor since the beginning. “It has had an incredible ripple effect.” Mentors have championed their program commitment to their peers, colleagues, fellow fundholders, major donors, corporate executives and others who have stepped up with gifts of their own. The result? The FPP designated fund established a decade ago with one gift of $25,000 just reached $1 million last year. It provides more than enough money to cover the costs of operations and grants distributions.

The Oak Park-River Forest Community Foundation acknowledges the triple bottom line created through the program. Rhea Yap, Senior Philanthropic Advisor and liaison to FPP, sums it up this way: “With Karen as program coordinator, the time I need to spend on this program is minimal, less than one hour a month on average, and maybe a total of five hours during the final decision making process. She and the mentors keep on top of everything and communication between us is quite smooth. Without Karen and the program mentors, we could not run this program, certainly not the way it is run now. And the positive effect on donors has been phenomenal”.

It is never too late to start thinking about youth philanthropy programming for the next generation. In fact, that generation is here and it is waiting. They represent Generation Z, those born between 1997 and 2012 and according to the Pew Research Center there are more of them than the number of Millennials. The oldest Gen Zers turn 23 this year which means the vast majority of those remaining are in high school now or have high school ahead of them. Let’s not let them down.

Rick King serves as President of Three Pillars Initiative, a nonprofit philanthropy service organization whose mission is to create youth philanthropy education curriculum and programs for communities committed to preparing the next generation for charitable sector leadership. He can be reached at rking@threepi.org for more information.

The Status of Youth Grant Making Programs: We Need Them Now More Than Ever