the story of the building bridges initiative · between practice and knowledge in nonproﬁt...

The Story of theBuilding BridgesInitiative

�

Foreword 1

The Opportunity 2

An Expanding Third Sector 2

A Widening Gulf Between 3Theory and Practice

The Initiative 5Bridging the Gap 5

Designing the Initiative 6

Seven Initiative Components 71. Project Leadership Teams2. Initiative Leadership Team3. Initiative-wide Meetings4. Integrated Impact Services

- Evaluation- Communication

5. Fostering Small Group Connections6. Capstones7. Association for Research on

Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA)

Lessons Learned 16

The Bridges Built 18

Appendices 21

Written by:

Katheryn W. Heidrich, Ph.D.CenterPoint Institute

Robert F. Long, Ph.D.W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Profile

Initiative name: Building Bridges between Knowledgeand Practice in Nonprofit ManagementEducation (Building Bridges initiative)

Dates: 1997–2002

Scope: $13.5 million, 20 projects in the United States, eight programs in Latin American countries

Between Practice and Knowledge in Nonprofit Management Education

The Story of the Building Bridges Initiative 1

The story of bridges is as much the story of outstanding individuals

as it is of improvements in available materials and structural design.

Building a bridge requires a person with a special heart, an

all-consuming drive and determination, and, above all, a vision.

Steven Ostrow, “Bridges”

During the five-year life of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s BuildingBridges initiative (1997 to 2002), hundreds of bridges were built betweenpractice and knowledge in nonprofit management education – bridgesbetween institutions in the initiative, institutions and their communities,and among individual participants in the projects. This report, “The Storyof the Building Bridges Initiative,” is just one slice of the story told fromour perspective as the two people who were there from beginning to end.Each person who was a part of the initiative also has stories to tell, butthese tales are beyond our ability to collect and report. What we knowabout these bridges is that the traffic is moving in both directions withmutual respect, benefit, and responsibility.

We dedicate this report, “The Story of the Building Bridges Initiative,” to the project directors and members of the teams that participated in theinitiative. They did the real building. Their bridges helped people accesshigher learning about nonprofit management and helped academicprograms access the wisdom and realities of practice. We hope that insome small measure their stories are reflected in these pages. They areoutstanding leaders with great passion for their work in the nonprofit sector.

Katheryn W. Heidrich, Ph.D.CenterPoint Institute

Robert F. Long, Ph.D.W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Foreword

The Opportunity

Imagine the world without bridges. The smallest river would

become a barrier, only to be crossed by boat or at a place where

the water is shallow enough to wade through … Journeys that

are just a few miles as the crow flies would have to follow a

roundabout route to avoid difficult streams and rivers … Without

bridges, all communication would slow down, and without swift,

reliable communications, civilization would not be able to develop

beyond the stage of small and mainly isolated settlements.

Jerry Kingston, “How Bridges Are Made”

Building new bridges is necessary in a field growing as rapidly asnonprofit management. Nonprofit organizations have been part of theAmerican scene throughout its history, but in the last quarter of the 20th century, the number of organizations exploded, leadership of theorganizations became more professionalized, and the study of nonprofitmanagement in our nation’s colleges and universities accelerated.

Lester Salamon reports on “the striking record of recent sector growth” in The State of Nonprofit America. “Between 1977 and 1997 … therevenues of America’s nonprofit organizations increased 144 percent …nearly twice the 81 percent growth rate of the nation’s economy,” and “ … the number of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations registered withthe Internal Revenue Service increased 115 percent, or about 23,000organizations a year” (Salamon 2002).

Because of this growth, leadership of nonprofit organizations needed tobecome more professionalized. The nonprofit operating environmentrequired leaders who were knowledgeable about governance, fund-raising, marketing, advocacy, human resource management, nonprofit law,technology, and a host of other arenas.

To keep pace with the increasing number and size of organizations and need for professionalized leadership, the number of nonprofitmanagement programs in higher education skyrocketed. According to data collected by Roseanne Mirabella and Naomi Wish at Seton Hall University, in 1990 there were 17 graduate programs offering aconcentration (three or more courses) in nonprofit management. Mirabellareported that in 2003, there were 114 such programs – an increase of 647 percent in just 13 years. That same year, there were 44 programsoffering an undergraduate concentration in nonprofit management and 70 campuses offering the undergraduate American Humanics certificate.

2

An Expanding Third Sector


Seeing the emerging needs of the sector, in the 1980s the W.K. KelloggFoundation created a new program area, Philanthropy and Volunteerism,under the leadership of Program Director Pete Ellis. The Foundationbegan investing in support systems for the sector, from the establishmentand ongoing operation of the Foundation Center to the creation ofinfrastructure organizations like the Council on Foundations andINDEPENDENT SECTOR.

With such dramatic acceleration across the field, nonprofit practice hasraced forward, while nonprofit scholarship has struggled to keep pace.Practices developed through the trial and error of nonprofit leaders havenot always been carefully studied. Meanwhile, even as the study ofnonprofit management has taken shape, the theories of practice developedby academics often have not reached practitioners.

To better understand these trends, the authors began in 1995 a yearlonginquiry into the state and impact of nonprofit management education.Interviews with more than 90 practitioners and academics yielded somestriking findings. Leaders of nonprofit organizations who had studied innonprofit education programs revealed that they had many educationalneeds not being met by academic centers. Specifically, these practitionerssaid that universities needed to provide more relevant programs, that they preferred to take courses based on the real-world experience ofpractitioners, and that academic programs should contain practical, as well as theoretical components.

In turn, interviews and consultations with academics revealed concernsabout the many challenges nonprofit programs in higher education facewithin their institutions, as well as broader challenges to knowledgedevelopment in the field. Within their institutions, academics expressedconcerns about challenges to the proper development of intellectual andtheoretical frameworks: the varied disciplinary placement of nonprofitmanagement programs (i.e., in the business school, public administrationprograms, social work programs, or as an interdisciplinary center), theuncertainty of long-term funding, and academic respect for nonprofitmanagement as a field of study. When academics looked at the nonprofitfield, they expressed concerns about the need to professionalize the fieldthrough certification, credentialing, career awareness, and career paths, as well as a concern that knowledge is scattered and difficult to locatebecause of the interdisciplinary nature of the field.

A Widening Gulf BetweenTheory and Practice

The inquiry also indicated an emerging cultural and communication gapbetween practitioners and academics.

4

The Opportunity

Practitioners

Want knowledge that is up-to-dateand immediately applicable torapidly changing needs

Question the utility of theacademic style of acquiringknowledge and sometimes suggestthat it is out-of-date in the fast-changing nonprofit context

Want programs offered ataffordable prices and convenienttimes

Academics

Value knowledge that extendsprevious research and is connectedto a theoretical framework

Work in the slower culture ofhigher education institutions – a culture that presents manybarriers to change and curricularinnovation – and suggest thatpractitioners should place greatervalue on theory and research

Constrained by university policies,pricing, and scheduling, aresometimes unable to offerprograms that are affordable or accessible to potential students

The inquiry found that knowledge in the form of theory and researchdeveloped in nonprofit academic centers often is not designed forpractical application, or it is not effectively disseminated to practitioners.Conversely, practitioner knowledge is frequently developed through trialand error in nonprofit organizations, with little attention to theory orresearch findings.

These findings would lead to – and shape the design of – an initiative tohelp nonprofit management education respond to the needs of nonprofitorganizations.


The growing divide between theory and practice gave rise to a KelloggFoundation effort: the Building Bridges between Knowledge and Practicein Nonprofit Management Education initiative. As stated in the KelloggFoundation’s Program Initiative Overview, the initiative sought to “helpdevelop more comprehensive educational programs that respond to thewide range of management and leadership needs of Third Sector leaders”and to “support efforts that create active two-way partnerships to improvepractice and build knowledge for nonprofit management into the future.”This was another step in pursuit of the Foundation’s mission to applyknowledge to improve the quality of life.

Formally launched in 1997, the broad aim of the initiative was to foster stronger links between the pedagogy and practice of nonprofitmanagement. It took on two challenges: How could university programsbe more responsive to the needs of nonprofit professionals? And howcould nonprofit professionals better understand the integral role thathigher education plays in developing knowledge for the field? Morebroadly, participants in the initiative were called on to commit to learningfrom one another in support of the development of educational programsfor nonprofit leaders.

Specifically, the initiative’s four goals were:

1. Extend the reach of, and access to, a full range of educational programs,thereby increasing their capacity and that of more diverse andrepresentative Third Sector leaders. The aim was to help educationalinstitutions respond to the changing nonprofit management environmentwith more effective and efficient programs.

2. Foster more comprehensive nonprofit management education by increasingthe capacity of practitioners, scholars, organizations, and institutions toimprove practice and contribute to the growing body of knowledge.

3. Continue the commitment to growth and reform in higher education bysupporting stronger relationships between the needs of the community and the contributions of higher education institutions.

4. Deepen the impact of educational programs on improving nonprofitmanagement practice by increasing their responsiveness to the field asrepresented by systematic change in critical areas such as:

• New leadership and management competencies• Increased diversity in leadership• Greater policy development capacity• Improved financial development capacity• Interdisciplinary and multi-sectoral curricula• Institutionalization of programs

The Initiative

Bridging the Gap

To build a bridge, investments are made in people, equipment, and

land. The site of the bridge must be chosen and the land must be

purchased. Surveyors measure the land. Deep holes are bored

into the ground to take samples of the soil and rock. The builders

have to find out if the rock is hard enough to act as a support for

the bridge.

“How Things Work: Structures,” Time-Life Books

To increase the capacity of nonprofit leaders through university-basedprograms of study, in 1986 the W.K. Kellogg Foundation funded theAcademic Centers of Excellence grant strategy. Grants made through thiseffort encouraged the development of different approaches to educationalprogram design and delivery. Between 1986 and 1996, the Foundationinvested more than $15 million in higher education programs in nonprofitmanagement. By 1996, relying on this decade of investments, interviewswith nonprofit executives and academic leaders, cluster evaluations,colleagues in the Philanthropy and Volunteerism program area, andsignificant first-hand experience in the field, the Foundation haddeveloped an integrated action plan for the Building Bridges initiative.Later that year, the Foundation Board of Trustees appropriated $13.5million to fund it.

The next step was making an investment that would bring more than 120 people, representing more than 70 higher education nonprofitmanagement programs, to the Kellogg Foundation’s offices in BattleCreek, Michigan, on June 3 and 4, 1997, for an informational session on the initiative. At the meeting, Kellogg Foundation program directorsshared lessons learned from recent nonprofit management educationgrants, presented future directions for grants and programs, anddistributed invitations for grant proposals. Hearing about the initiative and asking questions enabled participants to decide if they wanted toinvest in writing a proposal.

Soon more than 50 proposals had been submitted to the Foundation.Program directors evaluated the proposals through a systematic processthat included peer review and site visits. Proposals were assessed using arange of criteria, including the degree to which they matched the initiativegoals and guiding principles, amount of funding requested, geographiclocation, type of institution, institutional investments, and strength oflocal partnerships.

6

Designing the Initiative

The Initiative


By the end of 1997, the Foundation had awarded grants to 18 institutionsof higher education and other educational collaborations or organizations– all in the United States. Twelve of these were new grantees; six wereexisting grantees that received supplemental funds to join the initiativeand participate in meetings. Eight months later, two more new grants were made, bringing the total to 20 U.S. grantees. Within another half-year, eight educational programs in Latin American countries were addedto the initiative, resulting in a unique cross-cultural program. Later, oneU.S. program withdrew due to a lack of readiness to participate ininitiative-level activities, leaving a final total of 27 projects in theinitiative.

(See Appendix A for a listing of Project Leadership Teams, and Appendix D for Initiative Project Summaries).

A log across a small creek is the simplest kind of bridge. It must

be long enough to reach from one bank to the other, as well as

strong enough to carry the weight of a person. This simple span

has just one part, the tree, though most bridges have many.

Engineers call the parts members, because like the members of

a team they work together to make the bridge strong.

Ken Robbins, “Bridges”

Just as bridges have parts that make up the whole structure, the BuildingBridges initiative had many elements. In addition to the distinctiveeducational efforts undertaken by the individual Bridges grants, theinitiative as a whole had seven key programmatic components.

Component One: Project Leadership Teams

When the Bridges initiative was launched in 1997, a core goal was thecreation of active two-way partnerships between the field of practice andhigher education. As a condition of being awarded a grant, the KelloggFoundation required projects to assemble a project leadership teamrepresenting key stakeholders. Leadership teams were a distinctive featureof the Building Bridges initiative and relatively innovative in the field ofgrant making. Each of the projects, as well as the initiative itself, had aleadership team. The initiative architects saw these teams as an expressionof the intent of the initiative. By bringing different voices together on theproject teams, strong bridges could be constructed and sustained.

Seven Initiative Components

The premise was that quality education programs in nonprofitmanagement depend on the full engagement of practitioners andacademics because knowledge is developed by and resides in both groups.It was expected that the practitioner perspective would help academicprograms become more responsive to the issues of practice. At the sametime, the academic perspective would help the practice of nonprofitmanagement become more connected to theory and research.

Within their projects, the teams developed, implemented, managed, and evaluated the grant. More fundamentally, these teams embodied the idea of “bridges” as a way to encourage a two-way flow of learningand teaching about nonprofit management and leadership within projects.Across the initiative, the project leadership teams functioned in yetanother way – as participants in annual networking meetings.

Because projects needed to be guided by people with diverse points ofview, the composition of the project leadership teams was not left tochance. The Invitation for Proposals document stated that the teams wereto be “representative of the key stakeholders involved in the project” andset forth criteria for team composition. To emphasize the importance of diversity within the initiative, proposals were required to include adiversity profile for the project leadership team. The profile was todescribe all aspects of diversity, including race, gender, and team/stakeholder role (e.g., Third Sector practitioner, higher educationadministrator, faculty/teacher, program participant/alumna(us), andcommunity member).

Finally, project leadership team members were asked to commit to servicefor the entire five-year period of the grant. While some attrition amongteam members was expected, it was hoped that the project leadershipteams would remain mostly intact for the life of the grant, and thatrelationships formed at the annual meetings would strengthen not only the individual projects but also the impact of the initiative as a whole. In the end, 143 individuals participated on a project team – 51 serving full terms, 92 partial terms.

At the initiative’s outset, some grantees, resistant to the idea of projectleadership teams, seemed to assemble a team simply to meet therequirement. Relationships within these teams tended to be more limited.However, over the course of the initiative, nearly all of the teams becamequality working groups that influenced the project beyond the initialscope of work.

(See Appendix A for a complete list of the Project Leadership Teams).

8

The Initiative


Component Two: Initiative Leadership Team

Launching and sustaining an initiative that stretched for five years andinvolved 27 program sites in the U.S. and Latin America was an endeavorthat could not be managed by Foundation staff alone. Furthermore, aswith the project teams, the combined ideas and coordinated efforts ofpeople working on different parts of the initiative were expected to have a synergistic effect on the whole. As the Kellogg Foundation programdirector leading the initiative, Dr. Robert Long assembled a team to assistwith several different functions supporting the initiative. This team cameto be known as the initiative leadership team, representing the followingfunctions:

• Leadership encompassed overall vision, direction setting, planning, and content of the initiative, as well as guiding the work of the team.

• Management supported the initiative as a whole, as well as the projectsas separate entities. Management activities included planning andimplementing annual “learning community” meetings, creating andmaintaining an initiative Web site and listservs, and promoting discourseand relationships across the initiative. Services to projects included sitevisits, informal counseling regarding the initiative, and formal consultingas requested.

• Communication developed and distributed products that explained and promoted the work of the initiative, both within and outside theFoundation. Communication work included a newsletter, projectrecognition efforts, speeches, news releases, media packets, panelpresentations at scholarly conferences, and published papers and reports.

• Evaluation measured the extent to which the initiative as a wholeachieved its change objectives. Several research projects were completedas part of the initiative evaluation. Results of evaluation studies fed thecommunication efforts mentioned above.

The initiative team was composed initially of people from threeorganizations: the Kellogg Foundation, CenterPoint Institute, and AppliedResearch. Key Kellogg Foundation staff included individuals in thePhilanthropy and Volunteerism program area, Meeting Services, andCommunications units. CenterPoint Institute provided managementsupport to the team and the initiative, as well as communication services.Applied Research was the initiative evaluator.

(See Appendix B for a complete list of the Initiative Leadership Team).

If you were to travel around the world, you’d see many, many

different kinds of bridges, both old and new. Bridges today may

look different than bridges built long ago, but their parts are similar.

Every bridge has a deck, where you walk or drive. Every bridge has

supports, too. The distance between a bridge’s supports is called

its span. All supports rest on foundations in the ground. And the

approaches are the roads leading to a bridge.

Carol A. Johmann and Elizabeth J. Rieth,“Bridges! Amazing Structures to Design, Build & Test”

Component Three: Initiative-wide Meetings

On an initiative level, practitioners and academics needed to cometogether on a regular basis. Kellogg Foundation experience has shownthat grant projects are significantly enriched by opportunities forparticipants to talk with others who are doing similar work. But theBridges meetings were more than places for people to network; they were a place for everyone who had a stake in the success of the initiativeto learn. They were, in other words, a learning community. Learningcommunity meetings became a place where team members could build a network, share information, question and challenge one another, andapply new knowledge. Relationships were built and strengthened,solutions to problems shared, successes celebrated, and ideas generated.

While it was expected that relationships formed at the annual meetingswould strengthen the individual projects, it was also expected that therelationships would strengthen the impact of the initiative as a whole.Working in isolation, most projects would probably achieve, to somedegree, the goals outlined in their proposals. Working together in alearning community, on the other hand, would help projects exceed thegoals they initially set forth. New curricular models could be shared,strategic alliances could form, projects might collaborate on aneducational product, and knowledge could be transmitted beyond thelimits of a single project site.

Four times during the initiative, key leadership teams representing theBuilding Bridges projects assembled for a learning community meeting(see Appendix F for details). The purposes for the meetings were: (1) topromote learning and communication among the projects, (2) providelearning opportunities for participants, and (3) increase participants’leadership capacity by increasing their understanding of the Third Sector

The Initiative

10


and its relationship to higher education. The meetings were planned andimplemented by CenterPoint Institute. To plan the meetings, CenterPointregularly consulted with the initiative team and with advisory panelscomposed of project team members. During the meetings, the advisoryand the initiative leadership team played vital implementation roles.

Component Four: Integrated Impact Services

Studying the bridges built in this initiative, understanding their specialfeatures and design, and communicating their stories were the tasks of theinitiative’s evaluation and communication team members. Evaluation andcommunication, policy development, meeting services, and technologyand program learning are all support services at the Kellogg Foundationthat exist to increase the impact of initiatives. In the ideal, these servicesbecome intentionally integrated with each other and into the initiativedesign and implementation processes – supporting the concept ofintegrated Impact Services1. All of these services played roles in theBuilding Bridges initiative, but communication and evaluation were keyelements of the strategy. In a sense, the initiative tested and proved thehypothesis that connecting communication and evaluation in this way canlead to greater impact. The idea was that potent communication messageswould be derived from evaluation results and that communication needswould help to inform the evaluation plan.

In the initiative’s planning stages, communication and evaluation wereseparate spheres of work. Applied Research, having completed the clusterevaluation for the Kellogg Foundation’s earlier Academic Centers ofExcellence program, was selected as the Bridges initiative evaluator. The communication work was to be handled by a firm that had not beenselected by the time the initiative launched. As the initiative unfolded, the communication function was left unfilled. Evaluation proceeded;communication lagged until the summer of 1999, when the KelloggFoundation delegated communication responsibilities to CenterPointInstitute, the initiative’s management intermediary. In August 2000, as the Foundation’s overall integrated Impact Services program was movingforward, the initiative’s communication and evaluation functions wereofficially connected.

1The principles and philosophy of integrated Impact Services, as defined by the Kellogg Foundation,are: proactive involvement; partnerships with staff, consultants, grantees, and vendors; planningof outcomes and processes; products which are innovative and effective; and promotion of goodstewardship. Evaluation asks questions about measuring and defining impacts and outcomes.Communication packages and presents the answers to those questions in various formats for variousaudiences. At the same time, communication helps to refine the evaluation questions – to derive the mostuseful data – and evaluation helps to define the audiences and vehicles for communication activities.

Evaluation

At the Kellogg Foundation, initiative-level evaluation determines how wellthe various projects in an initiative fulfill the objectives of systemic change.It looks across projects to identify common threads and themes that, havingcross-confirmation, take on greater significance. Initiative-level evaluationis used to enhance the effectiveness of grant making, clarify the strategiesof major programming initiatives, and inform public policy debates.

The Building Bridges initiative evaluation assessed the extent to whichthe goals and guiding principles of the initiative were met by the 19 grantorganizations in the United States. Evaluators were able to identifysimilar impacts and outcomes, as well as processes, among many of theinitiative grantees. In 2002, Applied Research completed Building BridgesInitiative Final Cluster Evaluation Report.

The following data sets were used in the development of the finalevaluation report:

1. Bridges Projects’ Final Narrative Reports – A collection from 16 of 19 grantees in May 2002.

2. Network Study – Collected from grantee leadership teams, this set offour network surveys measured communication links among participantsover time.

3. Builders’ Study – From interviews with 10 Nonprofit Academic Centerdirectors (builders of the field) to identify how the centers grow and howthey are sustained.

4. Student Survey – Students enrolled in nonprofit certificate and degreeprograms at six Bridges institutions responded to surveys about how andwhy students chose educational programs and their perceptions of theseprograms.

5. Alumni Survey – A follow-up to the student survey, alumni were askedto reflect on their educational programs and identify new skills.

6. Learning Community Meeting Evaluations – Learning communitymeetings were evaluated to determine which aspects of the meetings weremost/least beneficial and to capture data about progress in projects.

7. Annual Reports – Documentation of the grantees’ progress toward goalsprovided to the Foundation on an annual basis.

In a departure from standard Foundation procedures, the evaluation reportdrew on the initiative’s final narrative reports as the primary sourcedocuments. Normally, final reports address grant-specific questions and aresubmitted at the conclusion of the grant. In a new approach, the Bridgesfinal narrative report asked all 19 grantees the same set of quantitative andqualitative questions and collected the data at the same time.

The Initiative

12


Communication

The initiative established communication objectives and identifiedopportunities to reach target audiences. Above all, the communicationtriumvirate of audience, message, and vehicle became the framework fordissemination strategy. The communication plan was built on reachingfive target audiences, with a specific communication goal for each:

• The higher education audience was composed of administrators, faculty,trustees, and alumni not directly involved with the study of philanthropyand nonprofit management and leadership. The communication goal withthis audience was to increase awareness of the value of Third Sectorstudies, as a strategy to engage universities with community needs.

• The nonprofit management education audience was composed of faculty,students, consultants, researchers, and others actively involved instudying, teaching, and/or researching in this field. The communicationgoal with this audience was to increase awareness of the value of linkingtheory and practice.

• The nonprofit organization and practitioner audience was composed ofexecutive directors, staff, and board members working in the Third Sector.Communication objectives for this crucial audience were to increaseawareness of nonprofit programs in higher education, encouragepartnerships with universities to develop curricula and help set researchagendas, encourage adoption of policies to support continuing education,and use research findings to improve practice.

• The foundation audience was composed of the Kellogg Foundation Boardof Trustees and staff, and other charitable foundations. Over the span ofthe initiative the communication goal for this audience was to increaseknowledge of the Building Bridges initiative and its innovative grantmaking strategies.

• The Building Bridges initiative audience was composed of members ofthe project leadership team and the initiative team. The ongoing goal wasto promote communication within the initiative and share programachievements.

Communication was a vital component of the initiative, seen as a way toamplify impact by raising awareness of the effort and the critical issues itwas addressing. Four methods anchored initiative communications:

• Meetings and presentations were used as a primary vehicle forcommunication. A total of 1,919 people attended 10 meetings. Forexample, presentations by bridges projects at the Association for Researchon Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA)conferences in 2000, 2001, and 2002 were well-received. Kellogg-sponsored breakfasts were particularly well-attended and proved to be avaluable opportunity for reaching the higher education audience.

• Publications kept participants connected internally and captured criticallessons and issues for external audiences. Evaluators tracked 83,625impressions in newspapers, magazines, journals, and newsletters. Nearly a dozen major reports about the initiative were developed and distributed.(See Appendix E for Document Summaries.)

• Electronic communications, particularly the Bridges Web site, were highlyeffective. As the initiative evolved and grew, so did the Web site. At the outset, the Web site was intended to be a central bulletin board forinformation about the Building Bridges initiative, primarily for members.An associated listserv also kept members in touch with each other. Intime, as more products were developed, the focus of the Web site shiftedto external audiences, providing an access point for information aboutnonprofit management education. The structure of the Web site evolvedfrom a page-based model into a database-oriented model, makinginformation easier to find and updates easier to make. The home page(www.CenterPointInstitute.org/Bridges) gave quick access to Bridgesmembers’ contact information, Bridges initiative historical information,recent developments, and links to other nonprofit managementinformation.

• Collateral materials were especially helpful in reaching one of the most important, but elusive, audiences: nonprofit practitioners. Thesepractitioners could influence the allocation of scarce resources at collegesand universities by driving demand for formalized nonprofit managementeducation. Getting information about nonprofit management educationinto the hands of practitioners was, therefore, a priority. To accomplishthis goal, an interactive CD-ROM presenting an overview of the nonprofitsector and education resources was developed. The initiative produced4,100 copies of the Nonprofit Power CD-ROM and mailed 2,500 of themto a selected list of nonprofit organizations within 30 miles of the home ZIPcode of each of the Bridges projects. Word of mouth and announcementson-line and in printed newsletters spurred requests for the remaining CD-ROMs, and by the end of 2003, all copies had been distributed.

Component Five: Fostering Small Group Connections

To foster small group connections, two mini-grant programs wereimplemented during the initiative. Small group activities took a variety of forms, including face-to-face meetings, listservs, collaborativedevelopment of educational resources, and sharing of curricula.

The first mini-grant program was dubbed “Connecting Strategies.” Sevenproposals were funded late in 2000. The total award amount granted was$57,210; grants ranged from $2,250 to $13,600. Connecting Strategiesactivities were completed by September 2001. Forty-six percent ofBuilding Bridges’ U.S. project team members participated in one or more Connecting Strategies activities. And, in all projects in both the

The Initiative

14


United States and Latin America, at least one team member participatedin at least one Connecting Strategies activity. Some strategies includedindividuals who were not members of Bridges teams.

The second mini-grant program was called “Building On Bridges.” Six proposals were funded in 2002. The total award amount granted was $100,000; grants ranged from $13,340 to $29,660. Activities werecompleted by December 2002. Participation rates were similar to theprevious mini-grant program, except that there was greater outreach to stakeholders who were not members of Bridges teams.

Component Six: Capstones

During the last year of the initiative, each project team designed aculminating experience to directly meet its project’s needs – a “capstone”that would boost the project to a new level. Several projects hosted sometype of stakeholder meeting to celebrate the announcement of a newprogram. Some used the capstone to produce materials: reports, CD-ROMs,or curricular materials. And two projects sent a team to the SalzburgSeminar to learn about and connect with nongovernmental organizationsaround the globe.

Component Seven: Association for Research on NonprofitOrganizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA)

The initiative team used annual ARNOVA conferences as a vehicle tocommunicate the findings and accomplishments of the Building Bridgesinitiative. For three years, CenterPoint hosted an annual informalnetworking reception for Bridges members and their colleagues, helpedorganize paper presentations by members, and facilitated KelloggFoundation-sponsored Building Bridges breakfasts.

These activities served many purposes, including advancing the principlesof linking practice and theory to improve the impact of nonprofit manage-ment education. In many ways, the goal of the initiative was promoted bythe primary research association for the academic leadership of the field.Curricular approaches, educational delivery systems, and collaborativeapproaches to learning all worked to strengthen relationships and a two-way flow of traffic across the bridge between theory and practice.

There are many types of bridges. Some bridges are for people to

walk across. Others are for cars, trucks, and buses, and there are

even special bridges for trains. A bridge can be just a few feet

long, or span many miles … the next time you see a bridge, look

at it carefully. Is it a suspension bridge, or a beam bridge?

Examine it to see if it has any special features. If you were an

engineer, how would you have designed it? Would you have

done anything differently?

Elaine Landau, “Bridges”

What was learned from the Building Bridges initiative extends beyond the story told in this report. The findings of the initiative evaluation andobservations of the leadership team have given us a better understandingof how initiatives work – especially initiatives that focus on university/community connections. Regardless of whether the point of entry to thework is the university, an association, government, or some other entity,future initiatives that aim to bridge universities and their communities tomake academic programs more responsive should consider the following:

• To increase the likelihood that initiative goals are met, goals need to beclearly and consistently articulated. Articulation should begin with the firstpublic mention or introduction of an initiative and continue throughout thelife of the initiative.

• To develop external partnerships, higher education units and staff mayfirst (or simultaneously) need to develop solid intra-universityrelationships.

• To encourage the development of comprehensive and accessibleeducational opportunities, consider funding both universities and thecommunities in question so power relationships are more equal.

• To improve the utility of educational offerings, universities should beencouraged to seek a curricular balance between immediate needs of thefield (responsive) and long-term leadership knowledge and skills(comprehensive).

The Initiative

16

Lessons Learned


• To build the management and leadership skills of individuals, classroom-based programs may be the better mechanism, while outreach and community service may be better vehicles for impactingorganizational practices.

• To increase the participation rates of people of color in certificate anddegree nonprofit programs, financial assistance, such as scholarships,should be provided. To reach the highest number of people of colorworking in the nonprofit sector, the development and implementation of outreach programs should be funded.

• To increase the visibility of this field, academics should share their workacross disciplines, promote their work with university administrators, anddisseminate findings in the field of practice. This recommendation mayrequire support for marketing and dissemination beyond what is typicallycalled for in grants, and it may require new forms of technical assistance.

Throughout history, bridges have been among the most graceful

and beautiful expressions of the builder’s art. Yet, ironically,

bridges are so utilitarian that they are easily taken for granted, and

are seldom appreciated for what they are. Of the millions of people

whose daily commute takes them across one or another of the

world’s bridges, how many pause to consider the incredible

achievements that these imposing structures represent?

Steven Ostrow, “Bridges”

According to the final evaluation report, the initiative participants built a number of valuable bridges between theory and practice, scholars andpractitioners, the academic institutions and the field. Six main outcomesstood tall:

1. University/community partnerships were deepened andexpanded. All Bridges grantees reached into their communities todocument and better understand the needs of practitioners and how theycould best meet those needs. Grantees conducted focus groups, engagedpractitioners in conversations, involved practitioners in advisory groups,and sought evaluative feedback from community members. Practitionerswere engaged in university work as instructors, consultants, collaborators,scholars, student mentors, staff, and students. The practitioners most oftenassumed roles of instructor and consultant to academic programs.Evaluators estimate that at least 190 partnerships were formed by granteesthrough the initiative. Grantees worked across universities – often withother Bridges institutions – to develop new programs and share ideas.

2. Nonprofit management education programs were establishedand extended across the nation, made available in a number offormats, and crossed disciplinary boundaries. Grantees developedmore than 40 new certificates, concentrations, and degree programs andrevised or created more than 130 nonprofit management courses. Allgrantees engaged in multiple efforts to disseminate knowledge aboutnonprofit management and the Third Sector outside of traditionalclassrooms. Grantees developed more than 80 workshops and trainingsessions serving more than 1,500 people. Grantees were also active inlocal and national conferences and seminars. Distance education wasanother option available to practitioners and students. Well over 6,000practitioners accessed distance education programs developed through the Building Bridges initiative. Students from Maryland to Oregon andMichigan to Texas have more programs to choose from and more coursesavailable from a broader range of disciplines than they did prior to theBuilding Bridges initiative.

The Bridges Built

18


One of the most reflective measures of an academic program’s quality isto ask alumni if, in retrospect, they would attend the same college, enrollin the same program, and study the same topic. A survey of alumni ofnonprofit master’s degree programs found that the vast majority of thosequestioned would attend the same college (87 percent), would enroll inthe same degree (80 percent), and would study the same topic area (88percent). Not only, then, are programs more comprehensive and moreavailable, they are also meeting the needs of the practitioners/studentswho have enrolled.

3. All grantees worked to address issues of diversity and inclusion.Grantees used scholarships and other forms of financial assistance toincrease the number of students of color in nonprofit managementprograms. Community outreach programs were often the strongestconnection that initiative grantees made with people of color andnonprofits that serve the needs and interests of diverse communities. Each Bridges grantee addressed the need to reach into communities ofcolor and to recruit or otherwise engage practitioners from minority orunderrepresented groups. Career fairs, targeted marketing, scholarships,and financial assistance were the most effective tools. Many grantees also focused in their curriculum or outreach activities on issues of anincreasingly diverse population and its impact on nonprofit organizationsand philanthropy.

4. Many grantees developed new relationships within their homeinstitution – breaking down institutional walls and developinglinks with faculty around the central concepts of the BuildingBridges initiative. Overcoming the barriers within and among highereducation institutions was one of the most frequently mentionedchallenges to working on the Building Bridges initiative. Grantees alsoworked across universities – often with other Bridges institutions – todevelop new programs and share innovative ideas and projects. Andgrantees advanced the field of study through research-based activities.Through the initiative, grantees contributed more than 100 research-baseddocuments to the field, including books, journal articles, case studies, andresearch reports. As the initiative ended, grantees were disseminating theirfindings and projects – a task that will likely continue for several more years.

5. Grantees were able to leverage initiative grants to raise otherfunds. The forward momentum of the projects was fueled in part byfunds garnered in leveraging the Bridges grants. At least $2,600,000 ininternal funds became available to grantees, and they raised more than$7,750,000 in external funds from private foundations, fees-for-service,and other sources. Nonetheless, financial sustainability continued topresent challenges, and a few activities were discontinued at the end of the initiative. Sustaining projects remains a challenge, but it is onechallenge that all grantees were prepared to face.

6. The most important outcomes of the Bridges initiative werelikely those related to students and the status of academicprograms. Alumni of nonprofit programs said they were able to make a greater contribution to their organizations, had more confidence in theirmanagement abilities, and were better able to apply theory to practice.Through increased interaction with alumni practitioners, Bridges granteessaw first-hand how nonprofit organizations changed policies and routinesin light of new knowledge and skills. And last, though certainly not least,the programs, services, events, and capacity that the initiative helped to build have increased the stature, credibility, and reputation of theacademic programs within their universities and the broader field of study.

At the end of the day and the end of the story, initiative

participants achieved a great deal. New degrees and certificates

were developed. More inclusive and accessible opportunities were

created. More programs that reach into the nonprofit community

were established. More people recognized the need for and vitality

of nonprofit management education. Practitioners acquired new

skills and knowledge, and, most importantly, the gap between

theory and practice in nonprofit management education was

bridged, with organizations and their communities better served

because of the work of the Building Bridges initiative.

The Bridges Built

20


American HumanicsKirk AllimanTonja ConourBarbara KeenerKala StroupPhyllis Wallace

Arizona State UniversityRobert AshcraftLucia CauseyPrincess CrumpKathryn Forbes

California State University at Los AngelesErica HagenJames KalluskyRudy SalinasMarcel SorianoGeorge Umezawa

Case Western Reserve UniversityMichael FitzGibbonDavid HammackJohn Palmer SmithSheryl SeredaCarol WillenJohn Yankey

City University of New YorkM. Starita BoyceGeoffrey MarshallKathleen McCarthyEugene MillerPeter Swords

George Mason UniversityRussell CargoPatricia LewisJohn SaccoDavid StevensonDaniele Struppa

Georgetown UniversityJohn CrapoPablo EisenbergVirginia HodgkinsonKathy KretmanSue MarshallSteven McLaineNeil PortaOliver Tessier

Getulio Vargas Foundation (Brazil)Minka Ilse BojadsenLuiz Carlos MeregeFrancisca Marisa de Souza

Harvard UniversityJames AustinShawn BohenDavid BrownMilano HardenAngela JohnstonFrances KunreutherChristine LettsMark MooreV. Kasturi Rangan

Indiana UniversityDwight BurlingameGwendolyn PerryEugene Tempel

Johns Hopkins UniversityOdus ElliotLester SalamonStefan ToeplerCarol Dugan-Wessner

Nonprofit Services ConsortiumRichard BushAlandra ByrdTullia HamiltonJeanene HarrisJohn McCluskyPatricia RichSue Richards

Northwestern UniversityAnn Cohn DonnellyDonald HaiderLiz Livingston HowardBruce Newman

Portland State UniversityMaria Elena CampisteguyLawrence DarkWalter Ellis Suzanne FeeneyG. McFaddenDennis Morrow

Southeast Center for Organizational Leadership

John HatchW. Patrick HaunCarter HolbrookBeverly JonesWilliam Thurston

Appendix

Appendix A: Project Leadership Teams

State University of New YorkLinda BrownMotier HaskinsNadya LawsonJudith SaidelMargery Saunders

The Learning Institute for NonprofitOrganizations

Katie Burnham LavertyTerry GibsonAndy LewisRonnie Stricklin

Universidad Bolivariana de Chile (Chile)Reinalina Chavarri MuñozAntonio ElizaldeSoledad Teixidó

Universidad de los Andes (Colombia)Connie de SantamariaMaria BurgosRoberto GutierrezMargarita Martinez

Universidad del Pacifico (Peru)Felipe PortocarreroCynthia SanbornMaria Matilde Schwalb

Universidad de San Andrés GraduateProgram in Nonprofit Organizations (Argentina)

Atilio BarattaHector Beccar VarelaGabriel BergerInes Gonzalez BombalMario DamillRaul Zavalia LagosAlejandro LottiGerardo Della PaoleraEnrique PeruzottiFrancisco Von Wothena

Universidad Iberoamericana, Golfo Centro(Mexico)

Margarita RomanMaria Eugenia Sanchez

Universidad Iberoamericana, Santa Fe(Mexico)

Kenia CastroJavier CervantesClaudia FuentesJesus Luis GarciaArturo VelazquezJorge Villalobos

University of PennsylvaniaMark BarnesRam CnaanIra HarkavyLakisha HullNikita JacksonJettie NewkirkMichael ReischFrances Walker-Ponnie

University of São Paulo (Brazil)Rosa Maria FischerSilvia Ferreira MacDowellIvani Tristan

University of Texas at San AntonioDwight HendersonRichard LewisCarol PetriHeywood SandersLinda SchottDennis Tynan

Western Michigan UniversityJames GilchristTracey MabreyJames PetersenJames SandersJanet StillwellDonald ThompsonWendy Wintermute

Yale UniversityLisa BerlingerPeter Dobkin HallPier RogersFrederick Streets

Appendix

22

Appendix A: Project Leadership Teams


Applied ResearchSam LarsonMark Wilson

Camino & AssociatesLinda CaminoShepherd Zeldin

CenterPoint InstituteMichelle ColemanDon HeidrichKatheryn HeidrichDelia JimenezBrien McHugh

Independent ConsultantsPedro KrotschElena Vila MoretJorge PerezMaria Isabel SillanoPamela Stevens

W.K. Kellogg FoundationSonia BarnesAlicia Santiago-GancerRobert LongPatricia MillerDan MooreAndres ThompsonMichael VanBurenConnie Vunovich

Appendix B: Initiative Leadership Team

Ardley, Neil. 1990. How We Build Bridges. Ada, OK: Garrett Educational Corporation.

Johmann, Carol A. and Elizabeth J. Rieth, 1999. Bridges! Amazing Structures to Design,Build & Test. Charlotte, VT: Williamson Publishing Company.

Kingston, Jeremy. 1985. How Bridges are Made. New York: Threshold Books.

Landau, Elaine. 2001. Bridges. New York: Children’s Press.

Ostrow, Steven A. 1997. Bridges. New York: Michael Friedman Publishing Group.

Robbins, Ken. 1991. Bridges. New York: Dial Books.

Salamon, Lester. 2002. The Resilient Sector. In L. Salamon, ed., The State of NonprofitAmerica. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Stone, Lynn M. 2002. How Are They Built? Bridges. Vero Beach, FL: Rourke Publishing LLC.

Time-Life Books. 1991. How Things Work: Structures. Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books.

Appendix

24

Appendix C: References forthe Story of the BuildingBridges Initiative

Appendix D: Initiative Project Summaries

Note: The individuals named were projectdirectors at the time of the Foundation grant.

American HumanicsKirk Alliman4601 Madison AvenueKansas City, MO 64112 USAPhone 816-343-6466 Fax 816-531-3527 http://www.humanics.org

Arizona State UniversityRobert AshcraftP.O. Box 874703Tempe, AZ 85287-4905 USAPhone 480-965-0607 Fax 480-727-8878 http://www.asu.edu/copp/nonprofit

The American Humanics program is aninnovative course of study that equipsuniversity students to become skilledprofessionals and leaders in America'syouth and human service agencies. TheAmerican Humanics Building BridgesProject was funded to enhance the scopeand quality of American Humanics’campus-based program in nonprofitmanagement and leadership, expand andupgrade the collaborative partnerships thatexist within the American Humanicsnetwork, and increase the number ofcolleges and universities that offer theAmerican Humanics program toundergraduate students.

Building Bridges initiative funding enabled Arizona State University (ASU) to establish its Center for NonprofitLeadership and Management (CNLM). As a result of the funding the ASU Centerundertook four major pieces of work: 1) established a graduate certificateprogram and bolstered an existingundergraduate program in nonprofitmanagement; 2) funded research projectsthat fill nonprofit sector information gaps; 3) created a nonprofit self-assessmentincubator; and 4) convened severalhundred individuals and nonprofits in ways that strengthened their leadership and management capacity.




California State University at Los AngelesMarcel Soriano5151 State University DriveKH C2057Los Angeles, CA 90032 USAPhone 323-343-4377Fax 323-343-4252 http://www.calstatela.edu

Case Western Reserve UniversityJohn Palmer SmithMandel Center for Nonprofit Organizations10900 Euclid AvenueCleveland, OH 44106-7176 USAPhone 800-760-2275 Fax 216-368-8592http://www.cwru.edu/mandelcenter

The City University of New YorkKathleen McCarthyCenter for the Study of Philanthropy, now the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society365 Fifth AvenueRoom 4301New York, NY 10036 USAPhone 212-642-2130 Fax 212-642-2141 http://www.philanthropy.org

California State University at Los Angelesis an urban school in the state’s universitysystem. The focus of the Building Bridgesinitiative grant was to implement a state-of-the-art Certificate in Cultural Proficiency atthe undergraduate and graduate levels andto develop educational/training programsthat promote culturally competentcommunity service professionals,paraprofessionals, and volunteers throughexposure to service in diverse environments.

The Case Western Reserve University(CWRU) project encompassed three areasof emphasis: nonprofit managementeducation, nonprofit management research,and connecting the university with thecommunity. Participants promoted increasedinteraction between academics andpractitioners to improve the effectivenessand efficiency of nonprofit organizations.The Mandel Center created and offered acontinuum of nonprofit managementprograms, from undergraduate to thedoctoral level, including a Master ofNonprofit Organization degree, aninnovative “practice-oriented” doctoral-levelstudies program, and a “dual-credential”program (Juris Doctor/Certificate inNonprofit Management) offered inconjunction with the CWRU School of Law.

The Building Bridges initiative grantallowed City University of New York(CUNY) to research the relationshipbetween giving, volunteerism andorganizational entrepreneurship, andmulticultural American democracy.Researchers explored the traditions ofcharity and mutual aid brought byimmigrants, the ways in which thesepractices were adapted on American soil,and the role of philanthropy in enablingeach group to claim a public role in thedemocratic system. The CUNY Center for the Study of Philanthropy developedcurriculum guides for undergraduate,graduate, and extension courses on thetraditions of giving, volunteerism, andnonprofit development of 11 differentimmigrant groups. It also developedvolunteer guides for nonprofits serving eachof the 11 groups. Funding also allowed thedevelopment of a video documentary on thephilanthropic activities of one of the groups.

Appendix

26

George Mason UniversityDavid Stevenson (deceased)4400 University DriveFairfax, VA 22030 USAPhone 703-993-1000 Fax 703-993-1002 http://www.gmu.edu/departments/npmp

Georgetown UniversityJohn CrapoCenter for the Study of VoluntaryOrganizations and Service, now Center for Public & Nonprofit Leadership3240 Prospect Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20007-2196 USAPhone 202-687-0500 Fax 202-687-5544 http://cpnl.georgetown.edu

George Mason University, with BuildingBridges initiative funding, created acomprehensive educational curriculum –undergraduate, graduate, and executive – in the management of nonprofitorganizations. The curriculum was based in research, and was delivered throughexisting and new technologies. GeorgeMason University developed on-linecourses to reach a more diverse and broadpopulation of nonprofit managers. Thenoncredit Certificate in NonprofitManagement, as well as the for-creditNonprofit Management Concentration in the Masters of Public AdministrationProgram were offered through acombination of classroom and on-line offerings.

The focus of Georgetown University’sBuilding Bridges initiative project was to build the leadership capacity of thenonprofit sector in the Washington, D.C.,metro area through development of acomprehensive range of professional andeducational services for senior staff andboard members. The Center for the Studyof Voluntary Organizations and Serviceestablished ongoing nonprofit leadershipprograms which provided technical andapplied training to local organizations. TheCenter also developed regular networkingopportunities for nonprofit leaders,established a local scholarship fund thatsupported the development of localnonprofit leaders, developed a long-rangeeducational plan that met the needs ofnonprofit management professionals in thecapital area, and established executiveeducation workshops which allowedregional leaders to network with national peers.




Getulio Vargas FoundationLuiz Carlos MeregeSão Paulo School of ManagementAv. Nove de Julho2029 - 10 Andar - sl 1059São Paulo SP 01313-902 Brazil Phone 011-55-11-281-7892 Fax 011-55-11-284-1789 http://www.fgvsp.br

Harvard UniversityMark MooreThe Hauser Center for NonprofitOrganizations79 John F. Kennedy StreetCambridge, MA 02138 USAPhone 617-495-1113 Fax 617-495-0996 http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hauser

The goal of this project was to strengthenthe relationship between the São PauloSchool of Management and Third Sectororganizations in São Paulo, Brazil, through a series of courses, seminars, andworkshops provided by the school’s Centerfor Third Sector Studies (CETS). CETSalso published and disseminated resourcematerials including working papers, anelectronic academic journal, and a book on the legal aspects of the Third Sector in Brazil.

At the heart of Harvard’s project was thedevelopment of case studies that weresuitable for use in teaching nonprofitmanagement education. The HarvardBusiness School and the Kennedy Schoolof Government developed eight new casesfor use in courses across the university,each with a nonprofit, nongovernmental, or social entrepreneurship aspect. Anothercomponent of this project was a series ofcross-school, inter-faculty curriculumworking groups designed to research and develop the knowledge base in thenonprofit management field. These groupsstudied sector policies, social marketing,accountability, and performancemeasurement, among other areas.

28

Appendix



Indiana UniversityEugene TempelCenter on Philanthropy at IndianaUniversity550 West North Street, Suite 301Indianapolis, IN 46202 USAPhone 317-684-8917 Fax 317-684-8900 http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu

Johns Hopkins UniversityLester SalamonInstitute for Policy StudiesWyman Building3400 North Charles StreetBaltimore, MD 21218 USAPhone 410-516-7174 Fax 410-516-8233http://www.jhu.edu/ips

Nonprofit Services ConsortiumRichard Bush1415 Olive St., Suite 200St. Louis, MO 63103 USAPhone 314-436-9580 Fax 314-621-6224http://www.nonprofitservices.org

The Indiana University Center onPhilanthropy presented a unique model innonprofit management education. Thecenter used the expertise of educators inmore than 20 different disciplines acrossthe university to teach a wide variety ofperspectives in nonprofit managementeducation. With Building Bridges initiativefunds, the Center on Philanthropy soughtto improve the understanding of thephilanthropic tradition, transmit thatknowledge to new constituencies andsuccessor generations, and improve thepractice of philanthropy and fund-raising.The Center also developed a five-course,comprehensive, for-credit, nonprofitmanagement certificate that can be attainedthrough the World Wide Web.

The emphasis of this project was creatingand organizing materials designed toprepare students for effectivecollaborations and partnerships among thenonprofit, for-profit, and governmentalsectors. The Institute developed acertificate-level program in nonprofitstudies to complement its Master of Arts inPolicy Studies program and coordinatedthe editing, writing, and production of ahandbook in public sector management.

The Nonprofit Services Consortium (NSC)included many organizations in two states,such as universities, communityfoundations, regional associations forphilanthropy and fund-raising, artsorganizations, and St. Louis Metropolitanarea United Ways. For more than 10 yearsrepresentatives from these organizationsbanded together to build the capacity andknowledge of area nonprofit organizations.Although not a direct human servicesprovider, NSC identified the needs ofnonprofits and helped them develop andimplement programs. Some NSC programscreated as a part of the Building Bridgesinitiative included an executive-trusteeleadership academy, a nonprofit resourcecenter and training clearinghouse, and anannual regional leadership conference.


The Building Bridges initiative grantallowed Northwestern University toestablish the Center for NonprofitManagement within the Kellogg GraduateSchool of Management. The Center offeredtraditional business students courses innonprofit management, publicmanagement, and social entrepreneurship.As a focal point of interaction betweenfaculty, students, and nonprofitpractitioners, the Center for NonprofitManagement also offered executiveeducation to Chicago-area nonprofitleaders and promoted research whichadvanced the nonprofit managementeducation knowledge base.

Through Portland State’s Institute forNonprofit Management, the NonprofitEducation – Community Alliances Project(NE-CAP) strengthened the leadership andinfrastructure of community nonprofitorganizations throughout Oregon. NE-CAPfacilitated partnerships and collaborationswith: 1) communities of color, through itsleadership development program, 2) ruraland geographically distant communities,through its distance-learning initiative, and3) the university itself, in the developmentof new graduate and undergraduatecurricula in nonprofit studies. NE-CAPorganized and sponsored an annualsymposium, hosting representatives fromapproximately 500 nonprofit organizations,businesses, foundations, and governmentagencies.

Northwestern UniversityDonald HaiderCenter for Nonprofit ManagementKellogg Graduate School of Management2001 Sheridan Road, Jacobs Center, Room 501Evanston, IL 60208 USAPhone 847-491-3415Fax 847-491-8525http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu

Portland State UniversitySuzanne FeeneyInstitute for Nonprofit ManagementP.O. Box 751Portland, OR 97207-0751 USAPhone 503-725-8221Fax 503-725-045http://www.inpm.pdx.edu

30

Appendix



State University of New York at AlbanyMargery Saunders Center for Women in Government, now the Center for Women in Government andCivil Society, University at AlbanyDraper Hall Room 302135 Western AvenueAlbany, NY 12222 USAPhone 518-442-3875Fax 518-442-3877http://www.cwig.albany.edu

The Learning Institute for NonprofitOrganizations/The Society for NonprofitOrganizations Katie Burnham Laverty5820 Canton Center Road, Suite 165Canton, MI 48187 USAPhone 734-451-3582 Fax 734-451-5935http://www.snpo.org/li

The Center for Women in Governmentsought to create a new model ofcollaborative learning that involvednonprofit organizations working withpolicymakers, business representatives, and universities regarding issues affectingwomen, children, and families. TheBuilding Bridges initiative grant enabledthe Center for Women in Government toestablish the Nonprofit Education Initiative(NEI). The NEI organized a statewideconsortium of nonprofit advocacyassociations that collaborated on providingeducational programs for staff andvolunteers of nonprofit organizations. The NEI facilitated the development of acertificate program in nonprofit managementand leadership. Short courses, seminars,leadership development retreats, and newcredit courses were developed, as weremany free educational events for thebroader community, such as lectures,roundtables, and an annual research andknowledge exchange.

The Learning Institute for NonprofitOrganizations was a partnership betweenthe Society for Nonprofit Organizationsand the University of Wisconsin ExtensionService. Working with faculty andpractitioners from across the nation and in collaboration with the United Way of America, the Institute developed acurriculum of eight nonprofit managementprograms. The programs ranged fromfundraising and volunteer management to board governance and finances. Thiscurriculum, delivered via satellite videotechnology, represented the first nationallyavailable Certificate in NonprofitLeadership and Management. The Institutealso produced four enrichment programs.The entire curriculum was targeted to meetthe needs of middle management staff, newexecutive directors, and volunteers beinggroomed for governance positions. Theprograms were also available on videotapefor asynchronous learning and could bepurchased from the Society for NonprofitOrganizations.


Universidad Bolivariana de Chile/YungayCenter: Socio-Community InterventionsAntonio ElizaldeHuéfranos 2917Santiago, CentroBarrio Yungay – Chile Phone 011-56-2-756-3000Fax 011-56-2-681-5689http://www.ubolivariana.cl

Universidad de los Andes Connie de SantamariaFacultad de AdministraciónCarretera 1 Este # 18A – 10Bogotá 20 Colombia Phone 011-57-1-339-4999Fax 011-57-1-339-4949http://www.uniandes.edu.co

Universidad del PacificoRosa Maria SchwalbAv. Salaverry 2020Jesús MaríaLima – Perú Phone 011-511-11-211-6526 http://www.up.edu.pe

The Yungay Center was conceived as a spaceof interaction between the UniversidadBolivariana de Chile – (Santiago) and itsimmediate neighborhood. The intention ofthe Yungay Center was to become anoutreach location for the following services:1) community legal services, 2) psychological attention hospital, 3) psycho-pedagogic diagnostic center, 4) neighborhood library, 5) permanent school of social leadership, 6) ecologicalinitiative group, 7) advising and formulationof competitive group projects, and 8) neighborhood communication center. The university used the funds to promotestudents’ participation in social projectdevelopment, particularly in poor neighbor-hoods. Universidad Bolivariana also formedPROhumana, a research program incollaboration with other universities,corporations, NGOs, and governmententities. PROhumana researched anddisseminated information about philanthropyin Chile.

After creating the Building Bridges initiativeteam from three different academic units inthe university, members interviewed at leastone professor from each of the differentschools to find out about their efforts in theservice they provide to the community andabout their needs in order to improve theirwork. The team also researched the successesand failures of past initiatives that gatheredpeople around the topic of socialresponsibility in the university. Two newsocial management classes were added to thecurriculum, and Third Sector managementproblems are included in a third class.

In response to economic and political crises in Peru, the research center of theUniversidad del Pacifico (CIUP)established an outreach program in thefields of nonprofit organizations,philanthropy, and social responsibility.Research focused on the history of private,elite philanthropy in Peru, the socialresponsibility of Peru’s major economicgroups, and the voluntary and charitableactivities of various non-elite groups,including women and youth. Workshopsand outreach activities focused on ways tostrengthen civil society organizations andlink national volunteerism and philanthropymore effectively to the promotion ofdemocracy and social change.

32

Appendix



Universidad de San Andrés Graduate Program in NonprofitOrganizationsGabriel BergerMiñones 2177(1428) Buenos AiresRep. ArgentinaBuenos Aires Argentina Phone 011-54-4783-3410 Fax 011-54-4783-3220http://www.udesa.edu.ar

Universidad Iberoamericana, Golfo Centro Margarita RomanKm. 3.5 Carr. Fed. Puebla-AtlixcoAP 1436Puebla, Pue. CP 72430, MexicoPhone 011-52-2-229-0700http://www.uia.mx

Universidad Iberoamericana, Santa FeArturo VelazquezProl. Paseo de la Reforma 880Lomas de Santa FeC.P. 01210, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico Phone 011-52-5-950-4000Fax 011-52-9-177-4400http://www.uia.mx/santafe

Three Argentinian higher educationinstitutions – Universidad Torcuato Di Tella,Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad(CEDES), and Universidad de San Andrés –joined forces to create the Social Develop-ment and Civil Society Program. The goal of the program was to strengthen theperformance of social organizations throughthe development of resources and researchthat advance knowledge and understandingof the characteristics and challenges faced bynongovernmental organizations in Argentina.The Social Development and Civil Societyprogram offered a first-level graduate degreein nonprofit organizations, as well ascontinuing education seminars, workshops,meetings, and lectures.

The Third Sector University Projectbrought together academics, universitystudents, and civil society organizationleaders through teaching courses incollaboration with some academicdepartments and the Center for Analysisand Social Promotion (CRPS). The CRPSdeveloped three programs: 1) SocialService, 2) Human Rights, Civil Societyand Gender, and 3) CommunityDevelopment. These three programs havedeveloped relationships with civil societyorganizations.

Universidad Iberoamericana, Santa Feformed a team to gather backgroundinformation on Third Sector organizationsin Mexico. Researchers concentrated onthe performance of the most relevantMexican civil society organizations anddisseminated the best practices to otherorganizations. Researchers enlarged theirstudy to include comparative data on otherLatin American civil society organizations.


University of PennsylvaniaIra HarkavyCenter for Community Partnerships133 South 36th StreetSuite 519Philadelphia, PA 19104-3246 USAPhone 215-898-5351 Fax 215-573-2799 http://www.upenn.edu/ccp

University of São PauloRosa Maria FischerAv. Prof. Luciano Gualberto Travessa J no. 374, Sala 256-05508.010São Paulo, Brazil http://www.usp.br

University of Texas at San AntonioLinda SchottCenter for the Study of Women andGender – now closed, but research isarchived at university library801 S. Bowie St.San Antonio, TX 78205-3296 USAPhone 210-458-4879http://www.lib.utsa.edu/Archives/WomenGender

The Center for Community Partnerships’Program in Nonprofits, Universities,Communities, and Schools (PNUCS)helped the University of Pennsylvaniafunction as a “New American College”which improves the quality of life in itslocal community through the engagementof faculty and students in community-based, real-world problem solving. PNUCS spearheaded the development of a databank of faculty and graduate studentresearch on West/Southwest Philadelphiacommunity assets. With the WestPhiladelphia Partnership, PNUCS co-developed a nine-week institute thatintegrated the experiences of staff andstudents, consultants, and high schoolteachers to assist representatives of 18nonprofit agencies in identifying theirorganizational capacity-building needs.PNUCS also created collaborations withinthe university between the GraduateSchool of Education, the University ofPennsylvania’s Law School, and theSchool of Social Work.

The Center for Third Sector ManagementStudies (CEATS) was formed in 1998 bythe College of Economics and BusinessAdministration of São Paulo University(USP). As a university center, CEATS/USPoffered senior education activities,professional training, research, consultingsupport, and outreach activities toBrazilian civil society organizations,businesses, and governmental entities.

University of Texas at San Antonio created a continuing education program for working nonprofit professionals. Theprogram focused on recruiting and traininghistorically under-represented groups, suchas minorities and women, for leadershippositions. The program consisted of twodistinct components: 1) a three-dayinstitute held in August where thoughtfulpractitioners gathered to hear and interactwith experts in leadership, and 2) fifteenclassroom sessions that focused ondeveloping specific nonprofit managementskills. The Center also developed a six-week summer program for high schooljuniors and seniors in which students wereplaced in a nonprofit organization for a100-hour experiential learningactivity/internship.

Western Michigan UniversityJames GilchristCollege of Arts and Sciences2304 Friedmann HallKalamazoo, MI 49008-5010 USAPhone 269-387-4356 Fax 269-387-3999 http://www.wmich.edu

Yale UniversityLisa BerlingerProgram on NonProfit OrganizationsYale Divinity School, now at Yale Schoolof Management135 Prospect StreetNew Haven, CT 06511 USAPhone 203-432-7811 Fax 203-432-6591http://ponpo.som.yale.edu

The ultimate goal of Western MichiganUniversity’s Building Bridges initiativeproject was to improve the quality of lifein surrounding communities by supportingand enhancing the vital contributions ofnonprofit organizations. At the core of theproject were faculty-student teams matchedwith local nonprofit organizations. Theteams solved specific problems orcapitalized on new ideas in order to bridgetheory and practice. Western MichiganUniversity also provided staff support forthe Nonprofit Resources Network (NRN),a collaboration of area nonprofitorganizations. NRN sponsored a monthlyworkshop series, a nonprofit resourcescenter, a virtual (on-line) managementsupport organization, and a series ofmanagement guides and bulletins.

This project directly addressed theeducation needs of leaders of faith-based,nonprofit organizations. The Program onNonProfit Organizations (PONPO)developed a National Seminar on ReligiousLeadership to ascertain the leadership,policy, and management competenciesnecessary for faith-based organizations.This national seminar includedrepresentation from educators,practitioners, and several religiousdenominations. PONPO also developed a leadership workshop for faculty at Yalethat focused on building capacity to createcross-discipline, practical theories ofleadership in faith-based organizations.

34

Appendix




Appendix E: InitiativeDocument Summaries

A number of reports about the initiative weredeveloped and disseminated. They are listed by publication date.

The Power of Convening: Building aLearning Community and Fostering aNetwork in the Building Bridges Initiative,October 2003.By Linda Camino and Katheryn Heidrich

Building Bridges Initiative ClusterEvaluation: Survey of NonprofitManagement Alumni, March 2002.By R. Sam Larson

The Builders Study:Building Philanthropy and NonprofitAcademic Centers: A View from TenBuilders, May 2001.By R. Sam Larson and Sonia Barnes

This paper describes the major lessonslearned from four networking meetings(1997 to 2002) that aimed to build alearning community among the BuildingBridges project teams.

This report builds on the findings presentedin the Survey of Nonprofit ManagementStudents (2001). Three research questions,developed from the goals and guidingprinciples of the Building Bridgesinitiative, guided the inquiry: 1) Didprogram content, as expressed by coursetopics, match the needs and interests ofthose being served? 2) How well doacademic programs connect with the worldof community practice? 3) How have themanagement capacities of alumniimproved as a result of their educationalprogram?

This study explored the development ofearly nonprofit academic centers and theroles that academic innovators played inthe development and sustainability of thesecenters. Researchers interviewed 10“builders” or academic innovators to findout how the centers they were associatedwith emerged and how they weresustained. Interviewees included: DennisYoung, Case Western Reserve University;John Palmer Smith, New SchoolUniversity; John Simon, Yale University;Kathleen McCarthy, City University ofNew York; Michael O’Neill, University of San Francisco; Naomi Wish, Seton Hall University; Robert Holliste, TuftsUniversity; Robert Payton, IndianaUniversity; Suzanne Feeney, Portland StateUniversity; and Virginia Hodgkinson,Georgetown University.

Building Bridges Initiative ClusterEvaluation: Survey of NonprofitManagement Students, March 2001.By R. Sam Larson and Mark I. Wilson

The Journey of the Learning Community,2000: Toward Sustainability of NonprofitManagement Education Programs,March 2001.By Linda Camino and Shepherd Zeldin

How Centers Work: Building and Sustaining AcademicNonprofit Centers, November 2001. By R. Sam Larson and Sonia Barnes

The Journey of the Learning Community,1999: Connections, Reflections andDirections, March 2000.By Linda Camino and Shepherd Zeldin

Voices of Wisdom: Knowledge andExperience from Practitioner-AcademicTeams in the Building Bridges Initiative,November 2000.By Linda Camino and Katheryn W. Heidrich

This study provides the student (or“demand”) perspective and a moredocumented and researched educator (or “supply”) perspective of nonprofitmanagement education. Researcherssurveyed students enrolled in six nonprofitmanagement graduate and certificateprograms affiliated with Building Bridgesinitiative grantee institutions. Somefindings include: 1) Most nonprofitmanagement students are employed full-time and most are employed in thenonprofit sector. 2) Students are place-bound, with most seeking a programwithin a one-hour drive. 3) Students’race and ethnicity closely matches theemployment composition of the nonprofitsector.

This report covers the final BuildingBridges between Practice and Knowledgein Nonprofit Management Educationlearning community meeting, October 18 to 21, 2000 in Washington, D.C.

In this document, researchers sharefindings about the development andsustainability of academic nonprofitcenters. They describe how these centerswork; how they were created, who leadsthem, how they are led, and how they gainacademic credibility and institutionalstability. This publication is based oninformation learned in The Builders Study(2001).

This report describes the Building Bridgesbetween Practice and Knowledge inNonprofit Management Education learningcommunity meeting, October 3 to 7, 1999in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Available inEnglish, Spanish, and Portuguese.

This study was designed to examinedimensions of practitioner-academicpartnerships as they were expressed in the key leadership teams of the BuildingBridges initiative projects. Three keyquestions guided this paper: 1) What is the composition of teams? 2) How are theteams structured? 3) What conditionscontribute to successful collaboration ofteam members? The study’s conclusionsoffer insights for practitioners andacademics working together to advance the field of nonprofit management.

Appendix

36

Appendix E: InitiativeDocument Summaries

A number of reports about the initiative weredeveloped and disseminated. They are listedbelow, organized by publication date.


The Journey of the Learning Community,1998: Moving from Imagination to Realityin Nonprofit Management Education,February 1999.By Linda Camino and Shepherd Zeldin

Nonprofit Management Education in theUnited States, October 1999.By John Palmer Smith

Nonprofit Management Centers: MovingBeyond the Periphery, November 1998.By R. Sam Larson and Robert F. Long

This report covers the Building Bridgeslearning community meeting, September23 to 26, 1998 in Battle Creek, Michigan.

This document is a transcription of aspeech delivered to the Building Bridgesinitiative public meeting at the RecoletaPark Cultural Center, October 7, 1999, inBuenos Aires, Argentina. Building BridgesProject team members, KelloggFoundation representatives, universityrepresentatives, governmental officials,nongovernmental organization leaders, andmedia representatives attended.

This paper examined how nonprofitacademic centers can become morepermanent or sustainable parts of theirinstitutions while maintaining their positive distinction of flexibility andresponsiveness. This paper was based onpublished literature about academic centersand institutes and draws on structured,personal interviews of center directors andstaff from six nonprofit managementcenters across the country. This paper wasfirst presented at the ARNOVA conferencein November 1998.

Meetings and Presentations

Vehicle: Learning Community Meetingsand Public Information Meetings

Audience: Building Bridges teammembers and representatives of highereducation, government, and nonprofit media

Vehicle: ARNOVA Panel Presentations

Audience: Faculty in nonprofit managementprograms, consultants, researchers, andothers engaged in the provision of nonprofitmanagement education

Vehicle: W.K. KelloggFoundation/ARNOVA BreakfastPresentations

Audience: Faculty in nonprofit managementprograms, consultants, researchers, andothers engaged in the provision of nonprofitmanagement education

Vehicle: Connecting Strategies Meetings

Audience: Bridges project teams

Vehicle: Building On Bridges Meetings

Audience: Bridges project teams

All four of the learning communitymeetings focused on communication inside the initiative. Two of the learningcommunity meetings additionally providedsignificant communication activity outsideof the initiative:

1999 – A public meeting was held inBuenos Aires to promote awareness ofeducational programs throughout LatinAmerica. More than 200 people attended.

2000 – A showcase for nonprofitmanagement was held in Washington,D.C., to inform nonprofit executives,media, and government officials aboutBridges programs. The showcase drewmore than 100 attendees.

Presentations were delivered at annualconferences in 1999, 2000, and 2001 byinitiative leadership team members andinitiative project team members.

In 2000, 2001, and 2002, the Foundationhosted a breakfast at the annual ARNOVAconference to update members about theprogress of the initiative. The breakfasts hadan average attendance of more than 200.

In 2003, the Foundation hosted a breakfastat the annual ARNOVA conference toannounce the establishment of twofellowships for faculty members of color.

The first mini-grant program (2000 to2001) was called “Connecting Strategies.”Seven proposals were funded late in 2000;the total award was $57,210; grants rangedfrom $2,250 to $13,600. Forty-six percentof Building Bridges U.S. project teammembers participated one or more times. In all projects (U.S. and Latin America), atleast one team member participated in atleast one connecting strategy.

The second mini-grant program (2002) was called “Building On Bridges.” Sixproposals were funded; the total award was$100,000; grants ranged from $13,340 to$29,660. Participation rates were similar to the previous mini-grant program.

38

Appendix

Appendix F: CommunicationHighlights


Appendix

Vehicle: RIVETS

Audience: Initiative participants andFoundation staff and Board of Trustees

Vehicle: Program Echoes

Audience: Foundation staff and Board of Trustees

Vehicle: News Releases

Audience: Higher education community,nonprofit management educationcommunity, and nonprofit organization andpractitioner communities

Electronic Communications

Vehicle: Building Bridges Web site

Audience: Initiative participants,Foundation staff and Board of Trustees,and general audience

Vehicle: Building Bridges Listservs

Audience: Initiative participants and teamleadership

RIVETS was a four-page, four-color,quarterly newsletter designed to keep theBridges teams connected. Stories featuredaccomplishments of individual teams andteam collaborations. Eight issues wereprinted with a total circulation of 2,866.

Program Echoes are collections of projectsuccess stories, circulated throughout theFoundation. Each contains several storiesof interest. Eight Program Echoes articlesfeatured Bridges projects.

As initiative reports were produced, newsreleases about the availability of theinformation were sent to relevantaudiences. Four separate releases, sent to atotal of 461 media, association, andinterest group representatives resulted inthe publication of Bridges-relatedinformation in several magazines andjournals. The total readership exceeded118,000. Bridges-related articles, based oninformation from the press releases, werealso published on several Web sites,including those of ARNOVA and theDevelopment Resource Group.

Fully functional Web site that acted, in thebeginning, as a bulletin board for initiativeparticipants. As documents and reportswere created and made available fordownloading, the site attracted visitorsfrom outside the initiative. ThroughNovember of 2000, there were 14,064registered sessions on the Web site for amonthly average of 639 sessions.

Five separate listservs facilitatedcommunication among participantsubgroups. The subgroups included theleadership team, the initiative teams,project team directors, Latin Americanteam members, and Bridges practitioners.Through the end of 2001, 397 messageswere sent through the email listservs.

Appendix F: CommunicationHighlights

Publications

40

Appendix

Vehicle: Nonprofit Power CD-ROM

Audience: Nonprofit practitioners

Collateral MaterialsAppendix F: CommunicationHighlights

An interactive CD-ROM, featuring anoverview of the nonprofit sector and adatabase of nonprofit managementeducation programs. There were 4,100copies of Nonprofit Power distributedthrough a targeted mailing and by request.

W.K. Kellogg FoundationOne Michigan Avenue EastBattle Creek, MI 49017-4058 USA

269.968.1611TDD on site

Facsimile: 269.968.0413

www.wkkf.org

PV 4310Item #864

0804 1M CPCPrinted on Recycled Paper

the story of the building bridges initiative · between practice and knowledge in nonproﬁt...

Documents