A Frustrating Game to Raise Critical Funds

To the Editor:

In response to Humphrey Taylor’s dead-on criticism of the reluctance of many foundations to consider funding a non-profit’s core expenses (“‘Core Funding’ Is Key to Charities’ Success,” Letters to the Editor, February 25), I say: Amen, brother.

Many of us on the front lines of non-profit development are confronted with subjugating our mission in order to figure out how to increase staff, for example, or simply how to make payroll.

At the Asheville, N.C., housing non-profit for which I raise funds, an explosive increase in building costs and land-acquisition prices has sharply challenged our ability to deliver housing that is accessible — let alone our ability to meet our operational and non-program budget needs. The cloak-and-dagger game of raising adequate administrative and operating funds to increase our effectiveness has become very frustrating.

Too many foundation boards hold the following myths: that they can have a greater impact by funding programs only, and that there is something fundamentally flawed with a non-profit group whose board cannot entirely raise its operating funds or plan those funds’ delivery each year.

Having had contact with a number of foundation trustees, I observe that some are experientially too far removed to make qualified decisions about non-profit operations. I also observe that many of their foundations have enjoyed stunningly robust investment returns and are more able to broaden their giving strategies now than ever before. Sadly, the “boogey man” of core-funding requests is still considered by those grant makers as something to be despised.

Steve Gruber
Resource Development
Neighborhood Housing Services
Asheville, N.C.