managing a neighborhood improvement initiative2 lessons from the middle 3 the focus of this report...

Lessonsfrom the Middle

[ M A N A G I N G A N E I G H B O R H O O D I M P R O V E M E N T I N I T I AT I V E ]

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

The Community Foundation Silicon Valley (CFSV) commissioned this report to document the role it played as managing partner in the Mayfair Improvement Initiative

(MII), in the Mayfair neighborhood of San Jose, CA. The MII was the first of the three neighborhood improvement initiatives implemented by the William and Flora

Hewlett Foundation. We are grateful for the input and support of an extensive range of stakeholders who shared their perspectives on the lessons learned and offered

ideas for others involved in a managing partner role in place-based initiatives. In addition, Grainger Marburg, Mayfair Project Manager, and Tonia Forbus, Mayfair

Program Coordinator, played significant roles in creating a vision and concept for this report.

In 1997, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation approached the Community Founda-

tion and the residents of Mayfair and asked if we wanted to embark on a partnership to improve

the Mayfair neighborhood.

Most of us had no idea what would happen in the coming years.

I remember our first planning meetings. Residents were full of ideas, full of hope. Some were a little

suspicious or unsure that the grant funds would really come to the neighborhood with neighbors

driving the process. Who were these foundations that wanted to get involved with my neighborhood?

Do they really care about us?

Looking back, I think the proof is here. The Mayfair Improvement Initiative has shown what hap-

pens when residents believe that they can take charge and make a difference in their neighborhood.

It wasn’t always easy, and there were numerous bumps in the road. That’s why the Community

Foundation decided to put together this toolkit. We want to share our experiences, what we’ve

learned over seven years of working in partnership with one small neighborhood.

We hope that the six major lessons we’ve learned will be useful to our colleagues at other founda-

tions, nonprofits, government agencies, and grassroots community groups as you work to improve

your own community.

We believe that these six lessons are universal, that they pertain to a wide variety of community

efforts, yet they are flexible and adaptive to unique communities and situations. They are:

3 Engage the Community

3 Be Clear about Roles and Responsibilities

3 Be Tolerant of the Time it Takes for Change

3 Build Evaluation Indicators into the Planning Process

3 Focus on Resource Development Early

3 Plan Early for the Exit Transition

At the heart of all six lessons is one critical element: the Mayfair Improvement Initiative was truly a

partnership, not simply a foundation initiative or an exercise in grantmaking. In Mayfair, neighbors

made the difference. Neighbors set priorities and created projects, and worked long and hard over

seven years to see change happen. Their work continues today, and will in years to come.

In honor of all that they have accomplished, this toolkit is dedicated to the neighbors of Mayfair.

Peter Hero, President Community Foundation Silicon Valley

2 3Lessons from the Middle

The focus of this report is on the role that we, Community

Foundation Silicon Valley (CFSV), played as managing

partner of the Initiative in the Mayfair neighborhood of

San Jose, the first of the three initiatives to be implemented.

Because Hewlett did not see itself as the implementer of

its NII model, it instead made grants to local community

foundations like CFSV to play this role. Hewlett utilized this

approach for at least two reasons: 1) community foundations

are “local experts” with first-hand knowledge of the communi-

ties involved in the initiative and 2) Hewlett sought to build

the capacity of community foundations to support neighbor-

hood-based initiatives. CFSV made a 7-year commitment

to play the role of managing partner of the Initiative in the

Mayfair neighborhood.

The Initiative started with a collaborative planning phase

where Hewlett, CFSV, City and County leaders, and Mayfair

residents came together to complete the Mayfair Strategic

Plan for Neighborhood Transformation (the Plan). The Plan,

through a year-long planning process that involved hundreds

of Mayfair residents and representatives from the government,

private, and nonprofit sectors, “was founded upon the belief

that effective and longer-term solutions to poverty and dis-

investment in our neighborhoods can be achieved only if the

community itself controls the planning and implementation

of revitalizing.” The Plan identified and prioritized 76 projects

that supported five neighborhood outcomes.

IntroductionIn 1996, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (Hewlett) joined a handful of other founda-

tions in America that were engaging in comprehensive neighborhood revitalization projects.

Unlike more common funding practices of targeting specific health, environmental, or social

issues, the neighborhood revitalization effort targets the entire community. Hewlett’s Neigh-

borhood Improvement Initiative (NII) is a multi-year, cross-disciplinary demonstration project

aimed at improving the human, physical, and economic conditions in selected low-income

neighborhoods. The NII was guided by six goals (see right for a full description of the goals).

Hewlett chose three sites in the San Francisco Bay Area to implement its initiative: San Jose,

East Palo Alto, and Oakland.


The Six Neighborhood

Improvement Initiative Goals

3 Connect fragmented efforts to

address poverty-related issues

in selected communities.

3 Improve the capacity (profi-

ciency and resources) of par-

ticipating community-based

organizations.

3 Improve the capacity of Bay

Area community foundations

to support neighborhood im-

provement strategies.

3 Create a vehicle for increas-

ing resident involvement in

neighborhood planning and

improvement strategies (lead-

ership development).

3 Leverage significant public/

private resources to support

community improvement.

3 Provide statistical evidence

of changes in poverty indica-

tors (unemployment, welfare

dependency, vacant and aban-

doned structures, etc.) over a

longer-term period.

CFSV created and launched a new nonprofit in the neighborhood,

the Mayfair Improvement Initiative, Inc. (MII), to implement the

Plan. Seven years later, MII is entering a new phase as Hewlett

funding ends and CFSV’s role as managing partner sunsets.

Through the organizational capacity-building efforts of CFSV,

MII is now a self-standing organization, responsible for its own

fundraising, operation, and strategic direction.

The strategy of large private foundations funding community

foundations to manage initiatives is fairly common, but not well

documented in the philanthropic field. This report contributes to

the field by sharing an overview of the lessons learned by CFSV

over its seven years as the managing partner of MII. This report

also offers insights for other community foundations or organiza-

tions considering managing partner roles in place-based initiatives.

For this report, twenty-five MII stakeholders, representing

all of the key partners – Hewlett, CFSV and MII, as well as

funders, public officials, board members, and partner agencies

– shared their perspectives on lessons and tips for others acting

as managing partners in place-based initiatives. At the time of

the Initiative’s inception there were few sources of information

from which CFSV could draw. In retrospect, we realize how

helpful it would have been to ground ourselves in the experiences

of others. Looking across perspectives of all key partners, we

identified six key lessons that emerged as common themes and

can serve to inform future partnerships. We believe the six lessons

presented in this report are essential to consider when approach-

ing a future initiative.

In the end, despite the challenges we experienced and the

lessons we took away, we believe the Initiative was successful at

reaching its intended goal of improving the human, physical, and

economic conditions of the Mayfair neighborhood. The neighbor-

hood experienced tremendous physical changes; among many

other improvements, a community garden was developed and street

lights installed making the neighborhood a place where residents

now feel safe to gather and interact. Leadership has emerged and

neighbors know how to get what they want and need. Residents are

now armed and empowered to continue making positive change in

the neighborhood. We hope the lessons presented in this report will

help future initiatives experience the same positive changes.


Engage the Community

Community involvement is a fitting first lesson for us to high-

light. It is the cornerstone of this Initiative and in many ways

the most challenging goal to achieve. Our shared philosophy

with Hewlett was: residents are in the best position to lead

community change. Unlike more common foundation fund-

ing practices that support the delivery of particular services

in a neighborhood, we believed that effective, deep-rooted,

and long-term solutions to poverty and disinvestment can be

achieved only if the community itself participates directly in

its own transformation; only if the community itself controls

the planning and implementation of the revitalization efforts.

Any real change must be fostered, supported and spearheaded

by the community. We did not want to prescribe to the neigh-

borhood a strategy for neighborhood improvement; we wanted

to support the neighborhood’s own capacity for change. The

Initiative was predicated on the idea that neighbors need to

be included in every phase of the process.

During the planning phase, CFSV facilitated numerous meet-

ings and involved hundreds of residents in developing a plan

for the neighborhood. The whole planning phase lasted a

year, and might have lasted longer, because we were always

seeking the highest levels of community involvement. When

the Plan was put into action, neighbors were invited to join

and lead committees overseeing specific aspects of the Plan.

Residents were envisioned not only as participants in the

design and implementation of the Initiative but as essential

change agents, communicators, and inheritors of the project.

Residents would also become board members for the nonprofit

created to implement the Initiative. Community involvement

was an essential factor in giving the Initiative momentum and

accomplishing its goals.

Why was this important to us?

People generally agree that community involvement is a given

in a comprehensive neighborhood investment initiative and

some might wonder why it is even worth mentioning in this

report. For us, it is because stakeholders, from board mem-

bers to evaluators, all emphasized its importance but more

importantly acknowledged the difficulty in making it happen

and making it meaningful. Involving residents in the planning

process, accepting and treating them as equal partners, pro-

viding everyone with a common language, and utilizing their

skills are all good in concept but are tricky to accomplish. It

requires a lot of time and commitment to continually ensure

the level of community involvement is high enough to con-

tinue the project after initial neighborhood investments. Most

of all it requires developing trust. Many Mayfair residents felt

“outsiders” (i.e. CFSV) could not be trusted. We learned that

a significant amount of time needs to be spent building trust,

communicating honestly with neighbors, and proving that the

foundation is invested in the neighborhood for the long haul.

What we suggest.

p Build a partnership from the beginning: Involving commu-

nity members at the outset is essential. Developing the vi-

sion, articulating goals and outcomes, and determining key

projects are all opportunities for residents to take ownership

early on.

p Empower, accept, and treat the community as an equal

partner: Community members need to have a seat and

genuine voice at the decision-making table. To truly be a

partnership, and provide residents with real opportunities

to embody neighborhood change, residents need to be equal

“The main thing is that you build

a partnership from the beginning.

The seeds of failure are planted

when it is not done that way.”

P E T E R H E R O

LESSON 1


partners and have as powerful a voice as the funder in what

happens in their neighborhood. Many will say that there is

an inherent power dynamic between funders and grantees;

this is true, so take all the steps possible to change the

dynamic, such as establishing joint operating and decision-

making committees and avoiding making unilateral manage-

ment decisions based on the funder’s wishes or perspective.

p Treat local political leaders as community members too:

It is very important that local government officials also buy

into the initiative. When local leaders are brought to the

table they are connected with residents and, in turn, are

accessible to the residents as change agents. Successful

neighborhood investments raise the profile of neighborhoods

amongst all local stakeholders – residents, funders, nonprof-

its, political leaders, etc.

p Allow time for the community to get engaged: Building

relationships takes time. And it takes time for strong local

leaders to emerge. Fostering strong relationships with the

community is essential in drawing out and identifying com-

munity members who can play active roles in the neighbor-

hood. It also takes time for residents to become accustomed

to the demands that civic participation requires; attending

long meetings and engaging in planning activities can be

frustrating and tiresome for some residents. It can also be

unrealistic, especially for those who are juggling more than

one job and struggling to meet childcare needs. It is not

uncommon that residents will find it easier and more re-

warding to participate in neighborhood-wide projects (such

as neighborhood clean-up days) rather than attend com-

mittee meetings, since these activities yield tangible and

concrete changes that can be appreciated immediately. In

order to sustain resident involvement, the initiative should

provide leadership training opportunities and also allow

time for residents to get on board with these processes, and

to develop skills to lead, manage and/or participate in the

processes.

p Let residents drive their neighborhood change but provide

leadership and guidance along the way: Use the community

strategically. Residents are best positioned to identify the

needs for community change but also need guidance to de-

termine the feasibility of their projects. Strategic plans with

too many projects to be completed in too short a timeframe

cause frustration among residents. It is critical that resi-

dents understand what they are trying to accomplish with

certain projects – what the ultimate desired outcomes are.

This helps inform evaluation and data collection processes

and keeps both residents and funders focused on programs

and projects that have the best chances of achieving the

changes envisioned in the planning process.


Hewlett never intended to implement its NII model on its

own and instead selected “managing partners” responsible

for overseeing the implementation. However, despite a clear

theory of change and an overall framework with specific

time and investment parameters, our responsibilities as the

managing partner were often unclear, particularly in the early

years of the Initiative. This lack of clarity at times created a

tense dynamic: We wanted to be responsible for achieving

the NII goals, but our understanding of what it would take to

achieve them did not always align with Hewlett’s opinion of

the best approaches to the work. Or so it seemed. The three

key responsible organizations (Hewlett, CFSV, and MII) rarely

came together to articulate clear roles and responsibilities,

especially during the first four years. Further, it made it

more difficult that two of the three were funders, each with

its own organizational culture, and the third partner was a

newly created nonprofit.


Many of the stumbling points in the Initiative resulted from

this lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities. In hind-

sight it is not surprising that we experienced tension. Creating

true partnerships is hard work. It requires all stakeholders to

act together, to honestly and openly share the responsibility

of power, and to compromise. As managing partner, our per-

spective was that we would manage the Initiative by facilitat-

ing and supporting the work of MII as well as ensure progress

towards target outcomes. Hewlett, at times, also seemed to

want to “manage” the Initiative beyond monitoring progress.

What most often hindered the relationships was the fact

that the three partners – each with its unique organizational

culture – were challenged by spoken and unspoken assump-

tions about roles and responsibilities from the very start of the

Initiative. Who does what? How are decisions made? It would

seem obvious that everyone needs to be clear about their as-

signed roles, but our experience reveals it was not obvious. We

struggled for some time. Participants often felt confused, and

at times frustrated, about who was responsible for what. In

fact, the lack of clarity around roles is interlaced throughout

several of the other lessons in this report. Many stakehold-

ers believe that if roles were clarified early on in the planning

stages of the Initiative many pitfalls could have been avoided.

And, the issue of roles should always be clearly articulated

and revisited frequently, particularly as an initiative moves

from one development phase to another. Roles likely will and

should shift over time as organizational capacity and knowl-

edge of the partners grows and the needs of the initiative and

neighborhood evolve. Intentionally revisiting and renegotiat-

ing roles regularly will allow for each partner’s strengths and

assets to be used to the greatest advantage throughout the

initiative. It is not surprising to us that as trust developed and

roles were clarified in later years the Initiative did not get as

bogged down in this conflict.

What we suggest.

p Be clear about intended outcomes and who is responsible:

At different points in the Initiative it felt as though Hewlett

held an opinion about the direction of the project, but it

was never stated. We were often at a loss to direct the com-

munity without this clearer, unspoken vision from Hewlett.

There was a disconnect between who was responsible for

different aspects of developing and carrying out the vision

Be Clear about Roles and Responsibilities

“We should take the opportunities

to say that things should be done

differently. This could be improved

– but sometimes there is a fear

about being a conflict maker.”

T O N I A F O R B U S

LESSON 2


of the Initiative. At the same time, CFSV possessed con-

siderable on-the-ground knowledge and expertise that we

intended to utilize when we were selected as the managing

partner. If Hewlett had been clear from the get-go about its

vision and strategies and articulated it to us and the com-

munity, we would have had a better understanding of what

success meant to them and when we needed to change

directions to better meet the Initiative’s goals.

p The agency responsible for implementation should be ac-

countable to only one entity: In the end, MII felt that even

though they reported to CFSV they really needed to be

responsible to Hewlett. In turn, we were often caught in the

middle between MII and Hewlett. This may be an argument

for removing the role of the managing partner from the

equation but we believe the managing partner adds immea-

surable value to this type of initiative and conflict can be

avoided with clearer roles and expectations.

p Build trust among all partners: There is certainly a power

dynamic when funders sit at the table with nonprofits.

But this doesn’t mean partnerships are impossible. Trust

is a critical factor. The NII is an asset-based initiative sup-

ported by the belief that communities best understand their

needs and hold ideas for positive change. Trust the manag-

ing partner to manage and trust the lead agency to lead

the implementation.

p Encourage open dialogue: Each entity should be free to

identify problem areas and ask for what it needs to fix them.

This particular lesson is not intended as a criticism of any

of the players in the Initiative; each entity – Hewlett, CFSV,

and MII – did what they believed was right in order to bring

about significant change in the neighborhood. Relationships

are always strengthened by open communication, and this

initiative is no exception.


Change takes time. Community change takes a lot of time.

This Initiative was certainly designed with this in mind. And to

most funders, a year of planning and six years of implementa-

tion is a significant amount of time for a project to become

established. By the end of the Initiative, more than $23.5

million in grants and in-kind support had been invested in the

neighborhood. Yet if the $16.7 million in cash, $6.7 million

of in-kind support, and seven years of hard work were all it

took to end poverty and intractable social challenges in the

Mayfair neighborhood, foundations and government could

have solved these problems years ago. Even with the long

investment in the neighborhood there is still a lot to do to

achieve the desired community-wide outcomes.


As with community involvement, most people can agree that

making change in a community takes a significant amount of

time. Projects of this scale invariably have kinks to iron out

and take some time before they run efficiently and effectively.

But it is not easy to be comfortable with long processes and

ambiguity. It is easy to cave to the pressure to demonstrate

change early on in a project when in reality the project is still

in the development phase. Our advice is to be patient in the

process and allow for the time it takes to implement projects

thoughtfully and strategically.

What we suggest.

p Allow time for neighborhood buy-in to take place: As identi-

fied earlier with community involvement, it takes time to

engage residents and identify strong leaders. Trust must be

built. Residents need to believe that change is not being

forced upon them. They need the space to articulate their

broad, long-term vision for the neighborhood and under-

stand what it entails to implement that vision. Strong facili-

tation in the planning phase will allow residents to identify

all the ways in which they want change in their neighbor-

hood, and assist them in developing a scope of work that

is transformative in vision, inspiring and, most importantly,

realistic. This process is essential but also lengthy, and one

year of planning may not be enough.

p Let the residents drive the process even when it takes

longer: Be clear in the beginning about who will fundamen-

tally shape the initiative. In this case residents needed to

fundamentally believe that they were decision makers and

be given all the power and authority that accompany that

Be Tolerant of the Time it Takes for Change

LESSON 3


role. As many neighbors will unlikely have been in the role

of decision maker, alongside two large foundations, it also

means that leadership must be developed. This was not

a prescriptive funding initiative. It focused on community

assets and the belief that residents know best what their

needs are and possess genuine solutions for improving

their communities. This is not to say that funders should

not provide their expertise, but that the expertise is informa-

tive to the initiative rather than directive.

p Celebrate early “wins”: There are many early accomplish-

ments that may seem minor but are truly fundamental

components of our success. For example, refurbishing a

community garden, painting murals, and improving neigh-

borhood infrastructure with streetlights and sidewalks

were all early wins that helped the Initiative gain cred-

ibility and momentum to tackle some of the more difficult

and nuanced social challenges such as health, education,

economic development, and housing. Resident attendance

at planning meetings and participation of political leaders

are also milestones that should be acknowledged. Celebrate

along the way and use the opportunity for reflection. If we

were to do it again, we would celebrate more regularly. We

would be on the look out for all the successes encountered,

regardless of how small they may seem. Waiting for bigger

successes or the end of the initiative can be frustrating

and defeating.

p Be open to ambiguity and messiness: Many stakeholders

felt that the Initiative was being invented as it progressed.

In many ways it was. Later on in the Initiative we were

forced to become comfortable with the idea that things

would sometimes be messy and unknown, that timelines

and perceptions of accomplishments would need to be

adjusted. Patience and a willingness to be open to change

are essential traits for all the key partners.

p Develop a clear rationale for how long you intend to fund:

We don’t know how long is long enough. It seems clear

that this Initiative could be funded for longer than seven

years. It is just now beginning to bear the fruits of our

labor. What we do know is an articulated rationale for the

length of investment was missing; in fact the length was

somewhat arbitrary beyond the notion that it was long by

traditional funding practices. A clear rationale would have

helped us test theories about what change could really be

accomplished in the time allotted. In the future we would

also consider committing to a range of years. We could then

consider capacity indicators when assessing how much

time is enough time: When is it clear the neighborhood is

equipped to continue the work of neighborhood transforma-

tion on its own? This is an area where a lot of thinking is yet

to be done and we would challenge ourselves to state clearly

why we are funding for a particular length of time.

“Patience is important. It takes

a long time to do this work

and the connection between

people is the key thing. You

need leadership that is cred-

ible with the community – so

that they are not viewed as an

outside imposition.”

M A N U E L P A S T O R


Build Evaluation Indicators into the Planning Process

One of the six goals of the Initiative is to provide statistical

evidence of changes in poverty indicators in Mayfair (unem-

ployment, welfare dependency, vacant and abandoned struc-

tures, etc.) over a long-term period. Evaluation is the vehicle

for doing so. As with any investment, Hewlett wanted to be

able to demonstrate to their board and to the field at large

the impact of its investment in the Mayfair neighborhood.

In order to do so, it put an enormous emphasis on evaluation

and evaluation results. Hewlett ultimately funded two evalua-

tions, one that focused on process, the other on quantitative

data; the process evaluation was incorporated into the original

design and the quantitative, outcome evaluation was com-

missioned near the end of the second year of the Initiative.

In part because the quantitative evaluation was not built in

from the beginning of the Initiative, Hewlett did not have the

quantitative evidence it wanted to be able to make statements

about its investment. They became frustrated and it was hard

to implement an outcomes evaluation after the Initiative was

off the ground. Though CFSV never disagreed with the overall

importance of quantitative measurement, Hewlett’s focus on

getting specific evidence of the impact of its investment often

overshadowed the anecdotal information that was collected.


A good evaluation is sensitive to the population it is evaluat-

ing, flexible enough to withstand changes in programming,

and based on the objectives of the initiative. This is a tall

order for any evaluation, but an especially weighty task when

investments reach millions of dollars. In addition, the start-up

of an evaluation can set the tone for the life of the evaluation,

and especially when the evaluation spans over seven years, it

becomes critical to ensure solid research from the start.

What we suggest.

p Be clear about what you are evaluating: Both program

and community-wide outcomes, indicators, and objectives

need to be developed from the start and clearly articulated

to all stakeholders. Evaluation indicators for the Initiative

were not clearly articulated during the planning process.

Many were identified during the implementation phase

and did not exactly connect to the strategic plan. In addi-

tion, program outcomes should align with the community-

wide outcomes and indicators identified and adopted by

the neighborhood1.

p Provide technical assistance to the agency responsible

for collecting data: In this case, MII needed significant

guidance to do their part in evaluation. Again, there is a

tendency among nonprofits to approach evaluation with a

level of skepticism and nervousness; spending time to train

and guide agencies on the logic and methods behind evalu-

ation and demonstrating the use of evaluation for continued

learning and improvement are worth the time investment

and will result in a collaborative evaluation approach.

p Be clear about when and what you can expect from an

evaluation: Frustrations mounted when evaluation data

were not available early on in the project. It takes time for

meaningful evaluation data to become available. Just as it

takes time for planning and implementation it takes time

for change to occur and be measured. It is helpful to build

in realistic evaluation points throughout the project and

articulate them to stakeholders.

1 Please contact CFSV if you are interested in obtaining a copy of MII’s com-

munity-wide outcomes and indicators (The Mayfair Neighborhood Index of

Progress). Information on how to contact CFSV is included at the end of

this report.

LESSON 4

“The statistical goal that was set forth for the evaluation was never articulated in a manner that had much connection with what the Initiative could realistically accomplish. There was a misfit between expectations and reality.”

R E N E E B E R G E R


Focus on Resource Development Early

The long-term goal of the Initiative included a vision of

residents continuing to improve their community with the

momentum of the Initiative behind them. Key to the Initia-

tive’s future aspirations of an autonomous MII was the transfer

of knowledge and skills related to resource development. To

survive, the organization leading the community must be able

to generate the funds needed to continue established projects

and support the existing infrastructure, as well as develop new

projects and engage in new activities.


This lesson may be the simplest and easiest for us to articu-

late. The sustainability of the Initiative and the newly formed

lead-agency is critical; it cannot continue in absence of fund-

raising and continued visibility. The transfer of resource devel-

opment responsibilities to the lead agency is not a question of

should it happen but when it should happen. In this area we

broke away from a Hewlett expectation that shared resource

development with MII happen late in the implementation

phase. We pushed for it to happen during the fourth year of

implementation, since we felt that it would give MII the time

to develop the necessary capacity while the organization could

still benefit from CFSV’s support and staff resources. The

original design called for us to be the primary fundraiser on

behalf of MII. This approach was successful in the short-term

but did not equip MII with the skills required for long-term

sustainability. In hindsight, the early transfer of knowledge

and responsibility may be the very thing that will guarantee

the sustainability of the MII. As a community foundation, one

thing we are good at is fundraising. Indeed, we successfully

raised more than $9 million on MII’s behalf over seven years.

It became our task to offer this fundraising skill to the Mayfair

organization and in doing so work with the organization to

leverage additional funds. And while MII is now independently

raising funds for its future, it could quite possibly be in an

even stronger position had the transfer of skills and responsi-

bility started earlier.

What we suggest.

p Start transferring knowledge and skills right away: Simply

put – it is never too soon to build and transfer knowledge,

skills, and tools about fundraising to the lead agency and

the community.

p Be fundraising partners with the lead-agency from the get-

go: The agency responsible for implementation of the initia-

tive should be considered an equal in the endeavor to fund

the project as early as possible. Equal responsibility and

shared knowledge can only serve to establish the longevity

of the project in the community.

LESSON 5


Plan Early for the Exit TransitionMII was a time specific initiative. All the partners – Hewlett,

CFSV, and MII – were always aware that major neighborhood

investment would end after seven years. Thus, planning an

exit strategy for the end of the initiative is a suitable final les-

son. Without good planning this transition can be jarring and

leave the implementing agency floundering. We can certainly

recommend that planning for the exit begin as early as pos-

sible. It is too late to begin developing an exit strategy six

months from the end of the partnership. There needs to

be ongoing conversations and continual focus on that reality.


While it is never too early to emphasize that funding ends

and relationships will change, many grantees (and funders)

find it easier to ignore this actuality. In fact, when we began

to stress the need to prepare for the transition midway through

the Initiative, Hewlett was somewhat resistant. It was our

sense, though, that without appropriate early attention to

an exit plan we would leave MII and the neighborhood in the

position of being unprepared for life on its own. Over time

Hewlett came to agree with this position. And, it is now our

experience that energies could have been spent even earlier

and more consistently to this end. As we began the planning

for exit we discovered myriad ways MII and the neighborhood

needed to build capacities to allow the Initiative to survive.

One example was clearly resource development, as described

in Lesson 5. The organization needed to be able to raise funds

on its own, and without the financial support of Hewlett (who

provided nearly all of the operating support for MII) or CFSV.

The neighborhood also needed to develop strong resident lead-

ers who could adequately serve as board members to MII and

be stewards for the organization. The Initiative was originally

conceived as a partnership, with the implementing organiza-

tion, MII, gaining unusual access to money, resources, and

support. To simply end the relationship would undermine the

long-term goal of creating a nonprofit to continue the neigh-

borhood improvement efforts.

What we suggest.

p Start the “exit” transition at the heart – not near the end:

As stated above, it is never too early to make it clear that

the managing partner role will end. Work with the lead

agency to develop a strategy for life after management.

One recommended change is that principal funders (in

this case, Hewlett) scale back their funding slowly. This

would allow the initiative to make sure that capacity cor-

relates with investment, and that funding can last longer

as the lead agency assumes increased fundraising responsi-

bilities. Exit planning should inherently include resource

development as being a shared responsibility of the manag-

ing partner and the organization responsible for implement-

ing projects from the very outset.

p Be available to the community after the end: Hewlett select-

ed the managing partners because of their community ties.

When the management role ends the community ties don’t.

It is important for CFSV to continue to be an advocate for

the Mayfair neighborhood. As a funder of and for the com-

munity it is in the best interest of community foundations to

support the neighborhood in new ways. CFSV and MII can

leverage their experience and expertise to connect with new

donors and support other community-based organizations

working in the neighborhood.

p Build organizational capacity: To some it may seem obvious,

but we would be remiss not to say that there is a great deal

of capacity building inherent in this work. And, to ensure a

stronger implementing agency at the end of the Initiative we

needed to continuously invest in strengthening the organi-

zational infrastructure of MII. It is easy for a new nonprofit,

such as MII, to expend most of its energy on implementing

the Mayfair Strategic Plan for Neighborhood Transformation

without attention paid to internal infrastructures. Alongside

the challenge of “doing the work of the nonprofit,” there

needs to be attention paid to setting-up a high-function

organization with appropriate financial systems, governance

and leadership, program delivery and impact, resource

development, and strategic relationships. Achievement of

this will best position the nonprofit to continue successful

neighborhood improvement activities long after the original

partnerships change.

LESSON 6


Over the course of the seven years that CFSV was involved

with MII, we made a lot of progress toward the original vision

of improving the human, physical, and economic conditions in

the Mayfair neighborhood. Community members, funders, and

partners in the Initiative all can attest to the positive changes

that continue to take place. Significant physical improvements

have been made in the neighborhood and residents are in-

volved and working together. We are proud of the accomplish-

ments of the Initiative and proud to have played an integral

role in reaching many of the intended goals. Some of MII’s

significant achievements over the course of the Initiative are

highlighted at right.

While CFSV’s official role as managing partner of the Initiative

has ended, we look forward to our new relationship with MII.

We see ourselves as a continued resource; connecting MII to

additional funding, acting as a convener around special issue

areas, and supporting MII in their growth and development. In

the end, we believe that although the role of managing partner

was a complicated and sometimes difficult one to play, our

commitment to the improved conditions of the neighborhood

and lives of the residents was always paramount and enabled

us to stay the course for the entire length of the Initiative

and make the effort very much worthwhile. Because of our

commitment to neighborhood improvement, we believe our

experiences throughout this Initiative and the lessons we have

learned and documented here are essential to take forward in

any replication of this model.

Conclusion MII’s Accomplishments

3 Refurbishing San Jose’s oldest community garden from

a blighted, unsafe place to a vibrant, beautiful garden

for Mayfair residents to enjoy;

3 Designing and incubating the Mayfair Computer Academy,

which helped 127 Mayfair residents connect to higher

education and increase their incomes through continued

training in computer technologies;

3 Establishing Casa en Casa, a grassroots health outreach

program that conducted 182 house meetings and enrolled

an estimated 965 children in health insurance plans;

3 Implementing a micro-enterprise program that has fostered

12 home-based businesses in Mayfair and provided key

resources to participants;

3 Coordinating a resident advocacy effort that has led the

City of San Jose to commit over $9 million to establish

a Mayfair Adult Learning Center;

3 Advocating for public safety enhancements, which has

resulted in more than $3 million in infrastructure improve-

ments for sidewalks and streetlights;

3 Advocating for more affordable housing in the neighbor-

hood. As a result, 92 new units of affordable housing are

presently under construction and another 75 below-market

units are presently in design or pre-construction; and

3 Leveraging over $5 million to launch a neighborhood-wide

school readiness initiative to prepare Mayfair children to

enter kindergarten ready to learn.

LESSON 1

14

For more information on the Mayfair Improvement Initiative visit

the CFSV website at www.cfsv.org or contact CFSV directly at:

Community Foundation Silicon Valley

60 South Market Street, Suite 1000

San Jose, CA 95113

408.278.2200

The research and writing for this report was conducted by:

Andrew Robinson and Sarah Barengo

LaFrance Associates, LLC (LFA)

1242 Market Street, Third Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

415.241.0605

www.lfagroup.com

managing a neighborhood improvement initiative2 lessons from the middle 3 the focus of this report...

Documents