1
Russian Community Foundations Study
Report
Submitted to:
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and Russian Donors Forum
Prepared by:
Monica Patten, Community Foundations of Canada, Ottawa, Canada
Alexey Kuzmin, Process Consulting Company, Moscow, Russia
Vladimir Balakirev, Process Consulting Company, Moscow, Russia
February 2006
Russian Community Foundations Study
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………... 3
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Chapter 1. Relevance and Context of the Study…………………………………………………… 8
Community Foundations in the Global Context…………………………………………................ 8
Development in Central and Eastern Europe…………………………………………………… 12
Strategic Themes for Community Foundations Around the World……………………………... 16
Development of Philanthropy in Russia………………………………………………………... 19
Chapter 2. Research Methodology………………………………………………………………… 27
Rationale for Making Methods Decisions………………………………………………………. 27
Sampling Strategy………………………………………………………………………………. 29
Data Collection Methods……………………………………………………………………….. 30
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………… 33
Protection of Research Participants and Ethical Considerations………………………………... 33
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Research Methodology……………………………………… 34
Strengths……………………………………………………………………………………… 34
Weaknesses…………………………………………………………………………………… 36
Chapter 3. Research Findings……………………………………………………………………… 39
Emergence and Growth of Community Foundations in Russia………………………………… 39
Russian Community Foundations: Individual Cases…………………………………………… 44
Togliatti……………………………………………………………………………………….. 45
Tiumen………………………………………………………………………………………... 48
Obninsk……………………………………………………………………………………….. 50
Pervouralsk…………………………………………………………………………………… 52
Zhigulevsk……………………………………………………………………………………. 55
Rubtsovsk…………………………………………………………………………………….. 56
Saratov………………………………………………………………………………………... 58
Penza…………………………………………………………………………………………. 60
Oktyabrsk……………………………………………………………………………………... 63
Kaliningrad…………………………………………………………………………………… 64
Chaikovski…………………………………………………………………………………… 66
Nizhni Novgorod……………………………………………………………………………... 67
Angarsk……………………………………………………………………………………….. 69
Kamensk-Uralski, Shelekhov………………………………………………………………… 71
Organizational Structures of the Russian Community Foundations…………………………….. 73
Common Themes………………………………………………………………………………... 75
Chapter 4. Discussion of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations………………………….. 80
What Is „Community Foundation‟ in Russia?............................................................................... 80
The Core Functions of Russian Community Foundations………………………………………. 86
Developing Funds…………………………………………………………………………….. 86
Making Grants………………………………………………………………………………... 92
Providing Program and Services……………………………………………………………… 98
Raising Visibility……………………………………………………………………………... 101
Sustainability and Strategies of the Russian Community Foundations…………………………. 101
References………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1068
Russian Community Foundations Study
3
Executive Summary
In the spring of 2005, we made our first visit to one of Russia‟s 20 community foundations. That
visit to the Togliatti Community Foundation set the course for what was to become an
exploration of the energetic and rapidly growing community foundation movement in Russia,
one stimulated by Togliatti‟s remarkable growth, by the vision and generosity of Charities Aid
Foundation – Russia (CAF-Russia) and by a small but influential group of international donors,
all of whom saw the potential for civil society, including community foundations, as an
important actor in the new Russia.
Throughout the subsequent six months, we studied the organizational structures, the giving and
granting patterns and the leadership of community foundations. We did our work within the
context of a fast growing global movement of community foundations, especially community
foundations in Eastern and Central Europe, and an expanding NGO and philanthropic sector in
Russia. To no one‟s surprise, we found that Russian community foundations have much in
common with similar foundations elsewhere, though are affected by the geography and linguistic
features of the country, which to some extent make it hard to connect outside the country, and
sometimes even within Russia, and by the history and culture of non-profit activity.
Nevertheless, Russian community foundations are actively taking their place in learning events
and meetings around the world, and are beginning to share their experiences with others. As
well, they are developing a network within Russia to provide opportunities for exchange,
learning and inspiration amongst each other.
Overall we found a movement with dedicated leadership. Successful fund development, broad
granting and efforts to promote awareness of the foundation were evident in most places we
studied. In a few, long-term viability is in doubt, while others have clearly become important
and most likely permanent features of community life, provided they continue to build their
Russian Community Foundations Study
4
capacities and resources. We suggest that the successful development of community foundations
in Russia is quite remarkable, given that the first was founded only in the late nineties.
In the report we offer a brief profile of each community foundation in Russia. While we are not
in any way evaluating their performance, we did note that each faces some challenges, often
identified by those with whom we met. At the end of each profile is a summary of challenges.
We hope that each foundation will consider them seriously as it continues to develop its own
work.
We note that the profiles, indeed, all our research, reflect a “moment in time”. By that we mean
that we documented what we saw and were told during visits and from our review of data and
statistics. That all occurred between January 1, and July 30, 2005. But as community
foundations are dynamic organisms, we know there has been movement and development since
then. In some instances that has meant growth. In others it has meant identification of new
challenges and attempts to address them. The changes that have taken place since June and will
take place into the future are sure signs that the community foundation story in Russia continues
to unfold.
In Chapter 4 of the report we describe our overall findings in the four main areas of activity:
developing funds, making grants, delivering programs and services; and raising visibility. We
applaud the progress that is underway but suggest that attention is needed in all areas if
community foundations are to grow in size, scale and impact. In particular we propose that
increased efforts in fund development, grant making and planning for the future are necessary.
We offer the following five specific recommendations to community foundations individually
and collectively as they continue to build their capacity.
1) Community foundations build on current efforts to stimulate the culture of giving by
encouraging new donors, including businesses and especially individuals, and increasing
funding levels from existing donors;
Russian Community Foundations Study
5
2) Community foundations reach out to organizations to whom they have not previously made
grants so that their granting can have a wider and deeper impact and they can become a
greater resource for addressing community issues;
3) The leadership of community foundations, including the Boards and executive directors,
develop long-term plans that will ensure their ongoing success and the continuity of
leadership at all levels;
4) The Partnership for Community Foundations be supported and strengthened so it can become
a more inclusive resource for emerging and established foundations, and become a more
active participant in global networks, including WINGS;
5) Community foundations, perhaps through the Partnership, continue their efforts to gather and
maintain statistics and data that will tell the individual and collective story of community
foundation development to various audiences, including donors, the media, governments and
other funders.
The study could not have been undertaken without the generous and welcoming cooperation and
participation of numerous people. Chief among them are the Boards, staff, and grantee
organizations in every foundation we visited or talked with. Their willingness to share their
story with us was truly a sign of commitment to their foundation and optimism about their
community. We spoke with various people at CAF-Russia and in the community foundation
movement outside Russia (notable among them was Jana Kunicka, Manager of the Community
Philanthropy Initiative of the European Foundation Centre) and we appreciated the support
offered us in many ways by the Russian Donors Forum. Interpreters made our work easier, and
the project‟s funders were readily available for consultation. We hope that the combination of
resources at our disposal have resulted in a report that will be useful foremost to Russian
community foundations themselves as well as to the Russian Donors Forum, and to others
interested in and supportive of this promising development in Russia.
Russian Community Foundations Study
6
Introduction
In the fall of 2004 we were invited to research and document the story of community foundation
development in Russia. At that time there were about 20 community foundations either
established or emerging in Russia, of which 13 were affiliated with the Partnership of
Community Foundations (simply called „The Partnership‟ hereafter), a self-directed network of
community foundations, then in its second year. Both the Partnership and several individual
community foundations were supported by donors external to their communities, indeed, in some
cases, external to the country. That support, in the form of financial grants as well as technical
assistance, including opportunities to learn from and with colleagues in other parts of the world,
was being offered primarily from the USA and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).
The research was initiated by the Russian Donors Forum, and funded by the Ford Foundation
and Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, both of whom have provided significant leadership in the
development of civil society in Russia. These foundations, along with the Russian Donors
Forum, wanted to understand both the history and the current state of community foundation
development in Russia, and to receive some recommendations regarding the most effective ways
to support future community foundation development. Additionally, they wanted the research to
result in useful ideas for community foundations themselves. The report was to be informational
and forward looking and was not in any way to be an evaluation of individual foundations or the
movement as a whole.
The report that emerged from our research is intended to be helpful, in the first instance, to
Russian community foundations. We hope it will inform donors and supporters as they think
about their future investment in Russian community foundation development, and we would be
honoured if the report finds its way to others who are studying or practicing community
foundation leadership.
Russian Community Foundations Study
7
The study was timely. The growth in the number of foundations and, in many ways, in their
level of activity, has been enormous – and all between the years 1998 and 2005. By spring 2005
the Partnership was in the middle of its third year in existence and well into thinking about its
future. And several donors and supporters were thinking about how they could move to the next
phase of support, while others such as CAF-Russia were in the midst of ongoing supportive
programs.
The time was right to undertake such a study for other reasons as well. Community foundations
are continuing to emerge all around the world, with new funders and supporters for their work
stepping forward. Community foundation leaders and thinkers are gathering in various settings
to think about the future of the field. And new opportunities for learning from one another at
conferences and through exchanges are presenting themselves, allowing for the concept to be
shared and adapted, and for leaders in community foundations to be inspired and motivated by
peers in many corners of the world. This study gave us the opportunity to think about Russian
community foundations in that rapidly growing and changing context.
Russian Community Foundations Study
8
Chapter 1. Relevance and Context of the Study
Community Foundations in the Global Context
The “Community Foundation Global Status Report” (Sacks, 2005) describes the rise in numbers
and the location of community foundations around the world, proposes some rationale for the
rapid growth in numbers of foundations, and offers a good sketch of foundation development in
many countries and regions. But to date very few studies have looked in detail at one country, at
its development and potential, and only one has looked at Russia: “Community Foundations in
Russia: Philanthropy between Tradition and Rebirth” (Hinterhuber and Rindt, 2004). So, while
our research is intended to be of help primarily to Russian community foundations as they plan
for their future, and to those who support community foundation growth in Russia, we hope our
report will add to the growing literature about overall community foundation development.
Our report begins with and will build upon the earlier reference to the rapid growth of
community foundations around the world. Thus we can situate Russian community foundations
within the context of the rapidly expanding universe of similar foundations in almost every
region of the world. Indeed, even in countries like the United States and Canada, where
community foundations have existed since 1914, some expansion and growth is still occurring.
But that growth is outstripped by the rapid development of community foundations in countries
that are often described as being „in transition‟, and that are renewing a focus on civil society.
Consider the following:
- Community foundations exist in 46 countries and number 1175 in total;
- Of that total, 274 are outside the USA, Canada and the UK;
- The growth in countries other than the USA, Canada and the UK represented a 24%
increase over 2003.
Russian Community Foundations Study
9
The 2005 “Community Foundation Global Status Report” (Sacks, 2005) suggests that
community foundations possess a set of characteristics which are largely universal (itemized
below), though notes that every country and, indeed, every community foundation emphasizes
certain features at certain times, and may in fact not ever reflect all the characteristics.
Community foundations are grantmaking organizations that:
- Seek to improve the quality of life for all people in a defined geographic area;
- Are independent from control or influence by other organizations, donors or
governments;
- Are governed by a board of directors broadly reflective of the communities they serve;
- Make grants to other nonprofit groups to address a wide variety of emerging and
changing needs in the community;
- Seek to build a permanent resource for the community, most often through the creation of
endowed funds from a wide range of donors, including local citizens, corporations,
governments and other foundations and nonprofits;
- Provide services to donors to help them achieve their philanthropic goals;
- Engage in a broad range of community leadership and partnership activities, serving as
catalysts, conveners, collaborators and facilitators to solve problems and develop
solutions to important community issues;
- Have open and transparent policies and practices convening all aspects of their
operations;
- Are accountable to the community by informing the general public about their purposes,
activities, and financial status on a regular basis.
There is general agreement that these characteristics well describe the range of activities and
practices community foundations implement. But it must be stressed that all of the above
Russian Community Foundations Study
10
characteristics are seldom, if ever, found in any one community foundation – in fact, it could be
argued that they speak to the potential of community foundations rather than the reality. These
characteristics are overall more likely to be found in North America and perhaps the UK. In
other countries, where the concept is emerging or the country itself is experiencing a period of
change, only a few of these characteristics may be present. For instance, there may be a focus on
geographic definition or on broad granting, but the future-directed notion of building permanent
funds for the community may yet to be relevant and in some instances may never be. Indeed, for
many, the emphasis right from the start is on community building and participation, perhaps
through the giving of modest amounts on a regular basis, rather than the development of
permanent financial resources.
The community foundation concept has proven itself to be flexible and adaptable. Increasingly
those who strongly believe that a community foundation must have several, if not all, of the
above features to be a „true‟ community foundation agree that variations on the concept can be
found, though rightly suggest that the field needs to be clear about how few or how many
characteristics are needed in order to be a community foundation. That discussion continues to
this day, though with less rigid dogma than occasionally marked it in the past.
There is some suggestion that the growth of community foundations has slowed in the USA and
the UK. In Canada, however, some growth still occurs, as it does in other countries such as
Germany, Mexico and Australia. In these latter three countries the growth is exceptionally rapid.
The concept of the modern community foundation is newer in these countries – and elsewhere –
and made more attractive by the availability of significant wealth as well as increasingly
enabling legal environments. In Canada community foundations continue to develop as a result
of social and economic restructuring. The loss of natural resource industries, the downloading of
the welfare state and the decline in the „sense of community‟ are often cited as mobilizing forces,
as is, of course, word of mouth – a certain tipping point has been reached, making the growth
exponential. This is a reality in many parts of the world. So too, and this is a significant factor,
Russian Community Foundations Study
11
is the influence of the internet and advanced communications as well as the numerous global
networks and programs that have emerged in the early years of the 21st century and which have
made connections and learning among community foundation practitioners relatively easy.
Around the world there is a growing realization and acceptance that no one sector – public,
private or civil society sector – can address all of the pressing issues that every society is coping
with. There is widespread agreement that the sectors must work collaboratively. Without
question this presents an opportunity for community foundations. Community foundations work
well (or have the potential to) with businesses and governments, contribute to long-term
sustainability, mobilize citizens, work in partnerships and, through their convening and
partnership strategies, identify and tackle issues that are seemingly unsolvable. Community
foundations can be a bridge between the three sectors, especially given the opportunity they have
to know their communities more deeply and broadly than almost any other entity. We believe
that these circumstances and this potential have contributed to the growth of community
foundations around the world.
So too has the injection of support from external donors. Every community foundation needs
capital to start up – human capital, financial capital and intellectual capital. Many in the
community foundation field believe that every community has human capital and intellectual
capital – which needs only to be unlocked. Community foundations have the potential to do so
through convening the community, linking with others and being a bridge between various
community institutions – all without huge financial resources. But to begin to build financial
capital they need an injection of money, which usually comes from outside the community or
possibly the country. This reality is nearly universal (Germany may be an exception).
Communities in the USA, in Mexico, in Thailand and in Australia, for instance, have benefited
alike from external funds, whether they were the traditional challenge grant or a straight start up
grant from a domestic or international donor.
Russian Community Foundations Study
12
But externally derived funding raises a number of yet unanswered questions: how much money
is needed and for how long? When is it the right time to offer funds? And, how should the
money be offered? In some cases funds from donors external to the local community are given
to the foundation support organization or association so they can provide technical assistance or
manage challenge grants. The expectation is that the value of the funds can be extended through
documentation of good practices, dissemination of ideas and training in groups. In other
situations funds flow directly to community foundations for start-up or for special projects.
Later in the paper reference is made to the importance of challenge grants. For now it is
important to note that external funding is often critical to the start up success of community
foundations.
Development in Central and Eastern Europe
Even though community foundations share common features and characteristics around the
world, we suggest it is not easy, or useful, to make comparisons from one country to another.
The circumstances in which they grow are too varied. So, we emphasize that this next section of
our report is not about comparisons but is rather an attempt to lay the groundwork for describing
Russian community foundations in a context to which they are most similar, that of the post-
soviet region of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). But even that context is not truly similar.
The vast geography of Russia, for instance, influences the development of community
foundations in ways that are not experienced in smaller CEE countries.
CEE countries have emerged from the soviet era and are on the path to new forms of governance.
With such a course comes new opportunity and challenge for civil society, and community
foundations are emerging as important actors in these developing democracies.
Community foundations have been identified in several countries formerly in the soviet sphere:
Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic
and Ukraine, according to the 2005 Global Status Report (Sacks, 2005). They are relatively new
Russian Community Foundations Study
13
in all these countries, and while countries like Bosnia and the Czech Republic each have only
one, others can rightly boast of their success in spreading the concept: Poland, for example, with
its 21 community foundations. For the most part these foundations were heavily supported in
their early days by foreign funding. USAID, Soros Foundation, CAF, Ford and Mott
Foundations were prominent supporters, and they often acted in partnership with each other or
with local NGOs. Many of the foundations exist in small communities, some in larger urban
areas, and several are regional in nature, but it is striking that few exist in the largest
metropolitan areas of any of these countries.
Community foundations throughout eastern and central Europe have much in common. They are
all dedicated to engaging citizens – often youth – in the community by granting to organizations
that promote citizenship in the broadest sense or by hosting events and festivals that in and of
themselves promote citizen participation or encourage interaction with others in the community.
These foundations are looking at ways they can contribute to the long-term sustainability of their
communities, through both encouraging a sense of pride and identity in the community via
targeted granting and through building modest funds of a permanent nature. For most, though,
immediacy impacts the manner in which they continue to raise and disperse funds, in as much as
the needs and issues of the day require immediate attention. Individual giving is limited (though
several of these countries are actively developing legal and legislative frameworks for the NGO
sector, including for foundations and donors) and the notion of endowment is relatively
unfamiliar. Local businesses are often relied upon as donors, while support from outside the
community remains prevalent. Many foundations, such as in Poland and Slovakia, are linked
through newly developing support networks so they can learn from each other, and are also
increasingly able to connect with peers in other parts of the world.
Yet, each community foundation in CEE represents its own unique history and culture, and each
is shaped by the circumstances in its community and region.
Russian Community Foundations Study
14
Russian community foundations share many of the above CEE features. In particular at this
juncture, a few common themes deserve to be noted.
Governance is a theme for discussion throughout the region and, indeed, around the world. As is
the case universally, boards in CEE countries include local leaders of influence, often from
business, local government and other NGOs. In North America and the UK, it would not be
unusual to have significant donors – individuals – on the board, among others. In CEE there are
still few individual donors, so other leaders, often from business, serve on community foundation
boards. But as important as the composition of the board is, the real issue is how the boards
function and who has the power – how independent board members are from the influence and
interests of their workplace, for instance. How they are (or are not) perceived as champions and
ambassadors for the foundation in the community, and how willingly they play this role. How
they see their role in planning for the long-term sustainability and future of the foundation, and
how they are seen to reflect their community‟s demographics, interests and priorities. While it is
fair to say that the role of governance is under the spotlight all around the world, the questions of
independence and community representation appear to be particularly relevant in CEE countries.
What constitutes the appropriate scope of granting is another topic under discussion in several
regions. Is paying for municipal street lights a legitimate way to make safety possible for people
in a community and thus enable participation in community life? If so, does this make it an
appropriate grant? To what extent should community foundation grants focus on reaching the
poor and underserved, or should they be directed toward a range of organizations, including
those in the cultural and recreational sectors? And to what extent should community foundation
granting be linked to municipal granting, either as a replacement or as leverage to attract new
donors, or simply to make the pot of funds bigger?
Relationships with local governments are often close. Is there a difference between a close
relationship with a bureaucrat or one with an elected official, that is, with the director of
Russian Community Foundations Study
15
recreation for the municipality or with the mayor? Foundations in CEE countries generally
report close ties with local government.
In CEE countries relationships with businesses are stronger than they are with individuals, and
this marks a striking difference from the North American approach. Local or national businesses
are the most prominent supporters of community foundations. This phenomenon is not unique to
CEE, but is found in Mexico, Australia, and to some extent in the UK and Southeast Asia. In
fact, the outliers in this area are the US and Canada, whose donors continue to be primarily, but
not exclusively, individuals.
The origins of a community foundation are interesting. In several CEE communities (as in
places like the Philippines) it is local or regional NGOs that have started the foundation, turned
themselves into a foundation, or incorporated foundation activities into their activities. It
remains to be seen if this is an effective approach over the long term. On the one hand,
community foundations with these origins may find themselves stretched thin and without a clear
focus, or sometimes in competition with other purposes of the organization as a whole. On the
other hand, they may rely less on external funding, having other resources of their own.
The issue of endowments or permanent funds seems clearer. For good reason, the general
practice in CEE is to raise and flow funds, perhaps nearly all that are available, in grants. At the
same time, most community foundations seem to recognize the importance of building long-term
funds. Plans to do so often involve setting aside a small amount or using challenge grant funds
to start their endowment. Even though relatively unknown, endowments in CEE have grown
significantly (CPI survey, 2005) over the last very few years, as they have begun to in Russia.
The reasons for this are several: improved quality of foundation performance, including greater
knowledge and skill within the foundation; improved economic and social circumstances; and
strengthened relationships with business and government. Of course the overall number of
foundations has grown, also raising the level of endowments.
Russian Community Foundations Study
16
Finally, in this section of the report, we turn to some of the key strategic themes that community
foundations around the world are facing, but may be especially pertinent in CEE as well as in
other parts of the world where community foundations are now emerging, such as Southeast
Asia. Addressing these strategic themes when a community foundation is in emergence is far
easier than after they have become common practice.
Strategic Themes for Community Foundations Around the World
A fundamental issue revolves around the notion of community itself, of who „owns‟ the
community foundation, and what is meant when we say “community”. For the most part, at this
stage of community foundation development, there is agreement that community foundations
serve defined geographic regions. But there are valid and challenging questions being raised
about the very notion of “community” by many philanthropy leaders and, while not the subject
of this paper, this question deserves considerable attention within the global field.
Some experts argue that the community foundation‟s legitimate identity comes about when the
whole community or region it serves sees the foundation as a vehicle for its betterment. Others
point out that this takes time and that in early stages of development a community foundation
may „belong‟ to one group more than to another. Balancing the sense of ownership among the
community at large, grant beneficiaries and donors, be they governments, businesses, individuals
or other non-government funders, appears to be important to its long-term success, but getting to
that state is not without its challenges almost everywhere community foundations exist.
But is the emphasis on community or on donors? Discussion about this question is lively and,
for the most part, respectful, though it is true that some foundation practitioners hold firmly to
the notion that the „client‟ is the donor and without donors there is no community foundation.
While donors are obviously important because of the resources they contribute, it has been
shown that community foundations can be equally and powerfully effective in their community
building role as catalysts and conveners, working with very limited financial resources. The
Russian Community Foundations Study
17
reality is that the continuum of donor and community is largely contextual and will vary from
place to place. But what is most important is that community foundations hold the emphasis on
donors and community in balance and according to local circumstances, and move on to
considering more long term and strategic issues than who is the primary ”client”– they both are,
and one cannot exist without the other.
Another key issue has to do with granting. As noted earlier, funds are being broadly dispersed to
support a range of causes and issues. Grants are often small in size, which likely is appropriate,
and in some communities grants are made repeatedly to the same organization, arguably to build
capacity in that organization. But the question of how foundations gauge whether their grants
make a difference or have an impact remains an issue. This is not only a matter of evaluation,
but one of philosophy. Should community foundations, in general, direct at least some of their
resources to address the most pressing issues of poverty, exclusion, and human rights violations,
or is small granting to a wide range of grantees the most appropriate action for community
foundations? This topic is under discussion, as it should be, throughout the community
foundation universe.
Another related issue is that of community foundations delivering programs and services. In
North America some do, but it is far from a major focus of activity. Some emerging foundations
in other contexts, especially those in countries in transition such as CEE or in foundations whose
roots are in an NGO, tend to be engaged in more direct program delivery. Observers wonder to
what extent this is a distraction from the mission of a community foundation, which is, at its
essence, to build the capacity of others to address community priorities and needs.
Sustainability is also a topic of interest. The growth of community foundations is remarkable,
but is it financially sustainable, both at the local level and as a field of community philanthropy?
As external donors withdraw, whether a challenge grant has come to an end in Canada or the US,
or USAID is withdrawing from a CEE country, long-term financial sustainability becomes an
Russian Community Foundations Study
18
issue. Challenge grants and external funding are critical catalysts for start up, but may
inadvertently, because the foundation has to spend so much time meeting the challenge that it
has not focused on other issues, undermine the long-term sustainability of the organization. And
boards of directors, almost everywhere, are loath to focus on sustainability, being preoccupied
with the immediate success of the foundation while they are the leadership.
But sustainability is not just about money, important as that is. It is also about leadership and
succession – topics on the minds of community foundation practitioners around the world. The
concept has captured the imagination and energy of today‟s community leaders, including
businesses, NGOs and, of course, staff and volunteers in community foundations. It is not clear,
anywhere in the world, how this commitment and passion will carry on into future generations
and how today‟s foundations are attracting and equipping leadership for the future.
The issue of long term viability in its broadest sense is (or should be) of grave concern to the
more general NGO world, not just to community foundations. And in CEE and Russia it might
be that the focus on long term sustainability is even more challenging than elsewhere, given
recent history: for many, the past has always been about change and they wonder why they
should invest in thinking about the longer term future when change, based on their experience, is
sure to occur again.
A further aspect of sustainability is related to performance and practices. There is a rush around
the world to embrace formal standards which are designed to encourage good practice and
accountability, to govern membership and access to services in support organizations or
networks, and to convey to donors as well as to other external bodies, including the media and
government regulatory agencies, that community foundations are highly accountable,
trustworthy and committed to excellence in practice. While high standards of performance are
absolutely critical and do contribute to sustainability, some wonder if standards really encourage
the highest level of innovation and flexible performance or if they reduce performance to a
Russian Community Foundations Study
19
common and therefore perhaps middle-of- the road practice. There is also a question about how
practices would really stand up under close inspection, even as the foundations are being
presented as „in compliance‟ with the standards. Conflict of interest comes to mind as one area
of vulnerability identified in many places, though others exist as well.
Another theme under discussion is that of the relevance and appropriateness of the community
foundation approach as a way to encourage generosity and build local giving and philanthropy.
Many argue that the general community foundation approach would be more appropriate if it
more effectively incorporated local traditions of giving, while others suggest that community
foundations tend to represent themselves somewhat boldly as the „best‟ answer to local
community needs. Of interest to this ongoing discussion are the many examples of local
traditions actually being adapted by community foundations in many parts of the world and in
particular, the current research focusing on southern Africa. The results of this study, along with
future research, may make a helpful contribution to understanding how various cultures practice
generosity and giving, and how communities can build on their histories for the benefit of
current and future generations.
Russian community foundations can be positioned within a rapidly growing global network of
likeminded leaders and organizations. Without question they reflect some of the key features and
characteristics of community foundations around the world, face some of the same issues, and
have much of the same potential. And they are developing in a period of rapid, though perhaps
unsteady, growth in the larger NGO and philanthropic sector in Russia.
Development of Philanthropy in Russia
Later in our report we reference the culture of religious and family giving. Now we look to the
picture from the period of 1917 onward. During the Soviet period (1917–early 1990s) charity
Russian Community Foundations Study
20
did not exist in Russia1, and support to the less fortunate was provided by the state through the
social welfare system. A complementary source of support arose when state-owned industrial
businesses established direct connections with educational, healthcare, sport or cultural
institutions to provide funds, often in the form of non-financial assistance such as equipment.
This model of giving was common to cities that were built around a single major business that
was deemed responsible for the social infrastructure of the city. Funds designated for the
support of non-business activities were included in their budgets.
Charitable organizations appeared in Russia in the early 1990s during perestroika. However,
many „foundations‟ established at that time by newly emerging Russian businesses had less than
charitable purposes: mostly money laundering and tax evasion. That phenomenon is well
described by Gambrell (2004):
“Scandals associated with abuses of nonprofit and charitable organizations also began to sprout
like proverbial mushrooms. Particularly notable among them, and extensively covered by the
press at the time, was the National Sport Fund, which received permission to import and sell
liquor, tobacco and other coveted consumer goods without being subject to the usual taxes. But
that was only the most prominent tip of a very large iceberg. Numerous organizations calling
themselves “foundations” or “funds” (the word is the same in Russian and English) were covers
or umbrellas for shady business activities, money laundering, currency operations, and so on.
Despite much truly selfless work to assuage long-standing ills, what was most visible to the
1 It was formally prohibited by federal law in the 1920s.
Russian Community Foundations Study
21
public at large was the graft and corruption associated with “charity,” “foundations,” “non-profit
organizations,” and the less common “philanthropy.” In Russian, the distinction between charity
and philanthropy is not firmly embedded in the public mind – or in the language. The word
blagotvoritel’nost’ – most often translated as “charity,” literally means “creating good deeds” –
and has been used almost interchangeably with “philanthropy.” Given the natural cultural
distrust of wealth after 70 years of Soviet propaganda, and numerous scandals, polls showed that
the public at large associated the concept of a “charitable” or “philanthropic” foundation with
shady money machinations.”
The distrust of the „foundations‟ and of the NGOs formed in the early 1990s lingers today. In
particular, research conducted by CAF-Russia in 1999 (Baranova Irina, et al., 2001) revealed that
a large majority of Russians are suspicious of NGOs and charitable organizations, consider them
useless to the common person, and do not understand the reason for their existence.
Corporate philanthropy began informally in the post-communist era. By the end of the 1990s
many businesses were supporting, in non-financial ways, endeavours to provide resources to
vulnerable groups. Research conducted by the Siberian Center for Civic Initiatives Support
(SCCIS, 1999)2 showed that almost 90% of businesses received requests for help from NGOs
and individuals. Strikingly, in 9 out of 10 cases businesses responded with support. Most often
businesses tended to provide support as in-kind contributions: they donated their production or
services. According to the SCCIS research, businesses favoured the support of children in need
(orphans), the elderly and people living with disabilities.
Notably in the 1990s businesses preferred not to make their philanthropy public for two main
reasons: to avoid attention from the fiscal structures and to avoid the appearance that a company
had „extra‟ money.
2 Research funded by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
Russian Community Foundations Study
22
The development of philanthropy in Russia owes much to the role of international donors. The
first foreign philanthropic foundation in Russia was George Soros‟ Cultural Initiative (CI),
established in 1987. CI helped support the publication of many books and the translation of
previously published materials, and provided funds for Soviet academics, writers, and scientists
– long isolated from their colleagues in the West – to travel abroad for the first time. Following
the dissolution of CI, Soros opened two new foundations:
- The Soros Science Foundation, which offered support for individual scientists and peer-
review, and awarded grants in the fundamental sciences;
- Russian office of the Open Society Institute (OSI), which supported everything from civil
society development, legal and tax reform, education, and textbook publication to
Russian literary „thick journals‟ and contemporary art.
In the nearly 15 years George Soros was active in Russia, his foundations funded projects to the
tune of over $300 million.
Many other foreign organizations began to arrive to assist Russia in the late 1980s and early
1990s.
Government aid in various forms and amounts arrived from the USA, Canada, European
countries and the European Union. Along with governmental agencies like USAID, CIDA, and
DFID, other foreign philanthropic institutions began to make grants for projects in Russia or to
open offices with grant-making programs: the Heinrich Böll Foundation, the MacArthur
Foundation, the British Charities Aid Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Charles Stewart
Mott Foundation, among others. The Eurasia Foundation, a U.S. government-private sector
partnership, was created in Washington in 1992 to “promote the advancement of democratic
institutions and private enterprise” in Russia and other post-Soviet countries. Over the last ten
years the Eurasia Foundation has supported projects in civil society, small business and media
Russian Community Foundations Study
23
(among other areas) with some $225 million in USAID funding, enhanced by more than $58
million from other private and institutional sources. Many of these foundations funded, and still
fund, a broad range of projects within Russia – often with a strong emphasis on the development
of the non-governmental sector and of the institutions of civil society.
The role of foreign foundations – particularly private ones – is succinctly described by Gambrell
(2004): They "provided both potential grantees and would-be Russian philanthropists with a
model of philanthropic activity. It involved a transparent, egalitarian grantmaking process, in
addition to financing hundreds of millions of dollars of projects over the first decade of post-
Soviet Russia. The staff of these organizations, as well as the juries constituted to evaluate the
grant applications, consisted largely of Russian citizens. Thus, the foreign foundations served as
a training ground for future Russian-funded philanthropic activity. Grantmakers and grantees
alike gained valuable experience – both philosophical and practical – in their contacts with
foreign philanthropy."
By the end of the 1990s numerous Russian NGOs had gained enough experience in managing
grants to offer assistance to governments at the municipal and regional levels. When the federal
and regional laws on the so-called „state social order‟ were issued, thereby introducing municipal
and regional grants, NGOs were well positioned to provide advice and technical assistance to
governments on how to implement the new laws. As a result of these laws a „project‟ culture
emerged in Russia and was widespread by the end of the 20th
century – owing mostly to the
efforts of foreign donors and NGOs, and their Russian counterparts.
The Charities Aid Foundation estimates that from about early 1992 (when prices were
decontrolled and privatization began) to the end of 1993, corporate giving rose tenfold, from
about $1 million U.S. to $10 million. Private donations, however, remained minimal – in the
thousands of dollars. The first, tentative steps toward charitable activity in Russia tended to be
along the lines of a „patron of the arts‟ or „sponsor‟ model. Businesses often sought to use
Russian Community Foundations Study
24
„charity‟, in its variously conceived forms, as advertising or self-promotion: getting their name
mentioned in the press, „buying‟ the goodwill of important people, sponsoring visible literary
and artistic prizes, or holding special events to benefit everyone‟s favorite causes – orphanages
and emergency medical aid to children. These charitable acts were usually isolated, one-time
affairs, and entirely lacking in any systematic philosophical approach.
Then, between 1993 and 1995, individual giving soared from the few thousands of dollars to
approximately $1 million. And over the same period corporate giving again rose tenfold, to
approximately $100 million. By 1998 over 75 percent of Russian companies were engaged in
some form of charitable giving. Giving on the part of both companies and individuals suffered a
major setback with the autumn 1998 financial crisis but by 2000 giving had not only resumed, it
registered another increase: CAF estimates that corporate giving reached about $200 million,
while individual contributions totalled approximately $10 million nationwide. Furthermore,
these increases in individual giving were made despite the fact that the Russian tax code offers
no tax deductions for donations to non-governmental organizations3.
In 2002 CAF research4 found considerable progress made by business donors in understanding
the difference between sponsorship and philanthropy (Krestnikova & Levshina, 2002). But the
lack of legislative norms to support philanthropy was considered the key problem facing the
development of corporate philanthropy by the majority of businesses who took part in the
research.
CAF reported that private giving rose from about $10 million to $100 million a year between
1992 and 2002 and that the amount of money funnelled to philanthropic and charitable activities
through CAF alone grew from approximately four million UK pounds to ten million. Many
3 Quoted from (Gambrell, 2004)
4 Research supported by Ford Foundation
Russian Community Foundations Study
25
Russian donors, private and corporate, prefer to have grant competitions administered by outside
organizations so as not to require large operating staffs. CAF, for example, has run grant
programs for Potanin‟s foundation, as well as for YUKOS and Khodorkovsky‟s Open Russia.
Unlike much of the previous private giving in Russia, these foundations are generally
grantmaking, and follow a more transparent, Western-styled model, using publicly announced
application processes, grant competitions and expert juries to determine grantees, in addition to
funding solicited projects and operating programs. There are six private and family foundations
established by some of Russia‟s wealthiest individuals.
In 2003 CAF interviewed5 representatives of major Russian corporations (CAF-Russia, 2003)
and they agreed that corporate philanthropy had developed considerably since 2000. More
companies already had long-term plans and clear priorities in that field. However, there was no
consensus among interviewees on the reasons why corporate philanthropy had so developed.
Explanations varied from the country‟s more stable economic situation to strengthened
government control.
Civil society in Russia has experienced growth as well since the late 1980s. Here the term „civil
society‟ is understood in the manner described by Evans (Evans, 2002): “the sphere of self-
activating, self-governing social organizations that are largely independent of control by the
state”. The number of registered NGOs has increased dramatically since 1991 and reached
350,000 by 2003, though many of them existed only on paper and were not active. The
population of NGOs is unevenly distributed around the country: the registered and active NGOs
in Moscow, St. Petersburg and a few other big cities clearly number more than those in all other
regions of Russia combined. This can be explained by the availability of resources, foreign
grants in particular. Registration of an NGO requires time and money. Individuals and initiative
groups in the smaller cities chose not to register their organizations since having formal status
5 Research supported by Ford Foundation
Russian Community Foundations Study
26
would not necessarily help them implement their activities and raise funds. This was true in
most parts of Russia until now.
Active NGOs are concerned with issues ranging from public health, child welfare, juvenile
delinquency, AIDS education, science and humanities education, culture and the arts, to media
training and monitoring, human rights, military reform, prison reform, environmental issues,
monitoring of government activities, refugee rights, and social assistance of various kinds.
As identified by Yakimets (2001), the development of Russian NGOs was characterized by three
stages: romantic (1991-1995); constructive and contradictory (1995-2000); professionalization
(2000 - …). It is fair to say that many NGOs have always depended to a great extent on foreign
funding and although they have become „professional‟, they have not succeeded in becoming
financially sustainable. Today, as foreign funds available to Russian NGOs are decreasing,
many NGOs face serious challenges, and their future is unclear.
Russian Community Foundations Study
27
Chapter 2. Research Methodology
Rationale for Making Methods Decisions
In this section we briefly explain how our methods decisions were made, which we consider
important even for the non-academic audiences for whom this report is written.
Patton (2001) suggests making thoughtful and practical methods decisions, whereby the methods
used are appropriate to the particular nature of an inquiry and the specific context in which the
inquiry is conducted. He urges researchers “to supersede one-sided paradigm allegiance by
increasing the concrete and practical methodological options available… Such pragmatism
means judging the quality of a study by its intended purposes, available resources, procedures
followed, and results obtained, all within a particular context and for a specific audience”
(Patton, 2001, pp.71-72).
Creswell (1998) provides the following “checklist” for methods decisions:
1. Consider the nature of the research question.
2. Decide if you need to explore the topic or to verify a hypothesis.
3. Decide if you need to present a detailed view of the topic or a “panoramic shot” of it.
4. Determine if you need to study individuals in their natural settings or conduct an
experiment in laboratory settings.
5. Decide how you position yourself as a researcher: as an active “learner” who can tell the
story from the participants‟ point of view or as an “expert” who passes judgment on
participants.
The purpose of our study was to explore the history of Russian community foundations and their
current state. Our research was aimed at discovering the complex interrelationships inside and
outside organizations in order to understand their „being‟, „relating‟ and „doing‟.
Russian Community Foundations Study
28
Therefore, this inquiry was oriented towards deeper understanding of the phenomenon of
interest.
Research questions: The questions that guided our inquiry were not theory-derived or theory
testing; they were exploratory. Answers to the research questions helped discover something
new, not verify a pre-existing model or hypothesis.
The study had to be open to whatever emerged in the course of our work and had to build on
inductive analysis.
The only way to collect information on the research topic was to work in the field and to study
individuals and organizations in their natural settings. This had to be a naturalistic inquiry
occurring without opportunities to manipulate or control variables in the settings under study.
Sources of information available for inquiry:
Data that could answer the research questions were mostly descriptive. The key informants were
individuals working for the community foundations, donating to the foundations, collaborating
with the foundations and/or using their services. Most of the information we gathered had to be
drawn from their memories and experiences. For the most part, documentation available for our
study (organizations‟ histories, strategies, publications, policies and procedures, advertising
materials) was also narrative.
From the very beginning we aimed at creating a constructive and forward-looking final product.
It was important for us to emphasize the learning and non-judgmental nature of our mission in
order to develop collaborative relationships with our colleagues from the community
foundations. So we consciously took an “active learning” approach as opposed to an “expert”
judgmental style.
Therefore, this had to be a naturalistic field study:
- Oriented towards a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of interest;
Russian Community Foundations Study
29
- Based on a few cases;
- Driven by exploratory research questions;
- Built on inductive analysis of mostly narrative data, drawn from individuals‟ memories
and documents;
- Conducted by researchers involved as active learners.
Sampling Strategy
In this section of the report we explain how we selected sources of information for our research.
In our research we followed the so-called „purposeful sampling strategy‟ typical for a qualitative
study (Patton, 2001): we selected sources of information such that would be most helpful in
answering the research questions and achieving the research goal. In the research literature such
sources are called “information rich” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
We started our research with the identification of Russian community foundations. To develop a
comprehensive list of the foundations we consulted with key players involved in their
development: Russian Donors Forum, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Ford Foundation,
Charities Aid Foundation (Russia), and leaders and representatives of the Partnership of Russian
Community Foundations.
We discovered a limited number of organizations in Russia that positioned themselves as
community foundations and were recognized as such both nationally and internationally. All of
them were full or associate members of the Partnership. Those became our primary sources of
information.
We also collected information on several foundations that did not belong to the Partnership and
were not broadly recognized as community foundations: Some of them had a clear intent to
become somewhat like community foundations in their respective regions; others once belonged
Russian Community Foundations Study
30
to the Partnership, but changed their strategy and turned into some other kind of organization
(for instance, private or corporate foundations); and others yet tried to become community
foundations but, for various reasons, failed to do so. So, this second group of organizations
helped us better understand what makes an organization a community foundation in the Russian
context and what the major challenges for community foundation development have been and, to
some extent, still remain.
Our third group of informants were Russian and international community foundation experts
who did not belong to Russian community foundations but were knowledgeable in this area:
representatives of the Russian Donors Forum, Mott Foundation and CAF-Russia. Expert
opinions helped us verify our findings and interpret data collected in the course of this research.
Experts also helped us better understand the context and history of Russian community
foundations.
So, our sample included:
- Russian community foundations that belonged to the Partnership (all full and associate
members);
- Emerging community foundations, former community foundations or organizations in
transition that could or wanted to become community foundations;
- Experts who did not belong to any particular community foundation.
Data Collection Methods
We used four methods of data collection: in-depth, semi-structured individual interviews, group
interviews, direct observation and document analysis.
Individual and group interviews
We conducted individual interviews with the leaders and staff of the community foundations,
founders, trustees and members of the board. We also interviewed business people who donated
Russian Community Foundations Study
31
to the community foundations but were not involved in the foundations‟ structures. These
interviews were conducted with individuals or small groups.
In all cases we talked to selected beneficiaries – representatives of organizations that received
community foundation grants. Our choices were inclusive to ensure that selected grantees
represented various groups of agencies supported by foundations: education, social welfare,
healthcare, sports, etc. Most interviews with the grantees were conducted individually at their
respective organizations or at the foundations‟ offices.
To avoid missing valuable data we consulted with the leaders of community foundations to
identify participants for the individual and group interviews that were most informed about the
community foundations and their activities.
We explained our research agenda and negotiated research activities with each organization‟s
executives. In addition, we introduced our research agenda to all the people whom we
interviewed.
As all the interviewees have had unique experiences and each had unique stories to tell, the
interviews did not proceed with the same questions for each respondent. Instead, the interviews
were semi-structured. The use of “issue-oriented questions” (Stake, 1995) helped us gather basic
information, while our openness to providing time for additional questions and readiness to
collect unexpected data allowed us to gather valuable complementary information.
Most of our interviews were conducted in Russian and translated into English when needed,
though in a few cases our informants‟ English abilities were such that we did not require an
interpreter. We planned our interviews so that our English-speaking team member could meet
English-speaking informants when possible and talk to them without translation.
Studying documentation
The documentation we studied included:
Russian Community Foundations Study
32
- Websites (Partnership, Russian community foundation websites and European
Foundations Centre (EFC), specifically the Community Philanthropy Initiative (CPI)
site),
- Articles published on the WWW,
- Flyers and annual reports,
- Minutes of various meetings including the Board meetings,
- Policy and procedure manuals,
- Evaluation reports,
- Conference proceedings.
And this documentation provided the following information about community foundations:
- Profiles of organizations and their histories,
- Major achievements and milestones in their development,
- Priorities and plans,
- Sources of funding,
- Scopes of granting,
- External relationships,
- Involvement in the Partnership activities,
- Development of Russian community foundations in a global and regional context.
Direct observation
We used direct observation when possible. Having had the opportunity to visit various
community foundations, we saw their offices and the environments in which they work. We
likewise visited grantees and in some cases observed projects in progress or saw their results.
Russian Community Foundations Study
33
We also attended two meetings of the Partnership and observed how the leaders of Russian
community foundations work together and make decisions.
Data Analysis
The amount of information collected in this study was very impressive. To analyze it we
followed what could be called simplified „grounded theory approach‟:
- we read through all the data;
- discussed it;
- generated categories of information or located the most important themes that emerged
from the data;
- and, finally, explicated a story from interconnection of these categories.
Our trio of researchers consulted with each other and even argued over the interpretations,
conclusions and recommendations. This report is the result of an interactive process of data
analysis and reflects our team consensus on what the data meant.
Protection of Research Participants and Ethical Considerations
The protection of research participants is an important issue when performing research in an
organizational or programmatic environment. All research activities were negotiated with the
community foundations‟ executives. We explained our research agenda to them as well as to all
the people whom we interviewed. We obtained permission to collect and to use data from
organizations and individuals. We negotiated and agreed on informal rules for working together.
To protect our informants we are not using attributed quotations in this report. All the non-
published materials (for example, presentations) we refer to were used with permission.
Russian Community Foundations Study
34
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Research Methodology
Strengths
Thoughtful sampling strategy
The number of community foundations in Russia is rather small. Consultations with the key
experts in the field helped us form a sample that was not only purposeful but also well
representative of the population of Russian community foundations. Thus our conclusions and
recommendations could be relevant to all current and future Russian community foundations.
Validation of research observations and immediate interpretations
Data source triangulation. We used two different types of data sources: people and
documentation. To study the phenomenon of interest we addressed many people representing
each of the community foundations and studied various documents produced by them. Our use
of several different cases (that is, several different community foundations) to verify findings
could be called „inter-case triangulation.‟
Methodological triangulation. We used multiple methods to collect data: individual and group
interviews, direct observation and documentation analysis.
Investigator triangulation. We used three researchers to collect and interpret data.
Truly exploratory nature of the study
All our interpretations, conclusions and recommendations were evidence-based. There was no
attempt to speculate on our research from the basis of a pre-existing theory or platform. The
issues were studied in depth and detail. Conducting fieldwork without being constrained by
predetermined categories of analysis contributed to the depth, openness, and detail of the inquiry.
Russian Community Foundations Study
35
Sensitivity to the research participants
The study was sensitive to the risks involved to research participants and, additionally,
considered their interests so that the information herein might prove beneficial to them and to
their respective organizations.
Potential usefulness of the results
All organizations and individuals who took part in the study will receive detailed feedback on the
results – feedback that could be immediately used. All the organizations‟ leaders and most of the
board members expressed interest in the results of this study.
Researchers’ competencies
In qualitative research the researcher is considered one of the tools of the research methodology.
Consequently, the researcher‟s strengths and weaknesses should be mentioned while addressing
the strengths and weaknesses of the research methodology.
Our strengths as researchers were:
- Methodological competence. Our team had proven competence in research methodology
owing to experience with research, evaluations and organization development work,
combined with formal education in research methods.
- Subject competence. Our team included an international expert in community foundation
development who also brought rich practical experience in supporting and training
community foundations and two researchers who had solid backgrounds in organization
development and program evaluation in Russia.
- Contextual competence. The diversity of our team allowed us to consider both
international (global) and national (local) contexts. For two team members, Russian
culture is their native culture and so a keen awareness of cultural context deeply inflected
Russian Community Foundations Study
36
this study. Furthermore, we enjoyed a familiarity with several key informants from our
previous work with them.
Research team effectiveness
Our team included one specialist from Canada (Monica Patten) and two specialists from Russia
(Alexey Kuzmin and Vladimir Balakirev). The two Russian specialists have been working
together since 1991 and so already were a good team by the beginning of this research, but they
had no previous experience of work with Monica. The team composition proved effective. It
clearly was the right fit in terms of personalities and individual styles. Not only did we learn a
lot from one another but it was fun to work together. We were able to use English for our
internal communications and correspondence. The interpreters we invited for data collection
were competent and nicely complemented the team.
Weaknesses
Limited generalizability
The study was conducted in Russia with a number of community foundations representing
several different cities from various regions. It is fair to say that each CF is unique and is
working in a unique environment. Thus the lessons learned from each community foundation
can only partially be applied in other community foundations. Nor can all the results of the
study be attributed to each of the Russian community foundations – existing or new.
Nevertheless, the study provided important insights that may be used by such practitioners as
funders, community foundation leaders and activists, municipal and regional governments, and
businesses. The results of this study may be helpful to the international community of
community foundations – with careful consideration of the local (Russian) context. In this
limited respect the research outcomes can be considered generalizable.
Russian Community Foundations Study
37
Limited access to information on the community foundations that did not prove sustainable
In most cases we collected data on those foundations from secondary sources as access to their
former representatives was unattainable.
Presence of community foundation representatives at the interviews
In many cases the community foundation‟s representatives helped us find our way to the
informants and were present at the interviews. We understood that their presence at the
interviews would influence interviewees. But, for the following reasons, we decided not to insist
on having „tête-à-tête‟ conversations with the informants:
- In most cases our informants expected the community foundation staff to introduce us
and to be present at the interviews. This expectation was particularly typical for the top
business managers and representatives of the local authorities. In order to avoid
unnecessary tension and to demonstrate our focus on learning and not on “control”, we
decided not to insist on changing that „protocol‟. Forced „tête-à-tête‟ conversations,
especially with VIP informants, could have become powerful negative interventions
potentially affecting the quality of our communication with the informants and the
overall quality of our work.
- We asked community foundation staff present at the interviews to sit quietly and merely
observe while we collected data. In most cases our request was honoured. In those cases
when community foundation staff got actively involved in our conversations with the
informants, we reminded them of our request and of our reasons for it, again asking them
to refrain from active participation.
- We know that in a number of cases community foundation representatives had
preliminary conversations with our informants and provided more or less detailed
guidance on how to answer our questions. In those cases, the presence of foundation
representatives at the interviews did not therefore influence the situation dramatically.
Russian Community Foundations Study
38
- However, we did have opportunities to talk to various informants on our own.
- Since we used several kinds of triangulation, we could verify both the data collected and
our interpretations of it.
Researchers' limitations
Our history and pre-existing relationships with some of the organizations studied had a certain
impact on us. Investigator triangulation (see the previous subsection), personal reflection and an
ongoing verification of data and interpretations helped, to a considerable degree, compensate for
that influence. Nevertheless, it was not easy to keep a stance of neutrality and to remain
unbiased with respect to the research subjects.
Russian Community Foundations Study
39
Chapter 3. Research Findings
Emergence and Growth of Community Foundations in Russia
Those who remember the beginnings agreed on the community foundation concept first being
mentioned in Russia by the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF-Russia) in the mid-90s. CAF-Russia
director Lena Young and her successor Olga Alexeyeva were the lone promoters of the idea for a
few years. They made numerous presentations at conferences, developed contacts with
community foundations outside Russia to collect relevant information, and contacted various
donors and development agencies working in Russia. CAF-Russia‟s intent was to facilitate the
creation of a few model community foundations in Russia.
By 1997 three cities had been selected for CAF-Russia‟s first work in developing community
foundations: Moscow, Togliatti and Tiumen. CAF provided the respective city governments
with detailed information on community foundations, and city officials were invited to visit
successful community foundations abroad. This networking and awareness-raising campaign
proved effective in helping the three cities prepare to establish their community foundations.
Togliatti looked to be the most promising of the three, and in 1997 CAF organized a visit to
Togliatti for a group of top managers representing several foreign donors. The goal of that trip
was to negotiate a strategy for cooperation between the Togliatti administration and foreign
donors in order to establish the first Russian community foundation. In 1998 the Community
Foundation of Togliatti was established, receiving modest financial support from CAF at this
initial stage.
In 1999 the second Russian CF was established in Tiumen, Siberia with the help of CAF. While
the community foundation in Togliatti was established as a new entity, the Tiumen Community
Foundation grew out of a successful and well-known local NGO Resource Center – a member of
the Siberian Center for Civic Initiatives Support Network.
Russian Community Foundations Study
40
In December 1999 the Moscow Mayor formally decided, independently, to establish a
community foundation in Moscow, though earlier efforts had been made with CAF-Russia
support. Two more community foundations were established in 1999: those in Samara and
Obninsk.
Since then the number of newly established Russian organizations that have positioned
themselves as community foundations has increased significantly (see the table below).
Table 1. Growth of number of Community Foundations in Russia
Years Cities where the CFs were established
1998 Togliatti
1999 Tiumen, Samara, Obninsk
2000 Moscow, Tobolsk, Pervouralsk, Kaluga, Zhigulevsk, Rubtsovsk
2001 Rostov-on-Don, Saratov
2002 Penza, Blagoveshensk
2003 Nerkhta, Oktyabrsk, Novocherkassk, Kaliningrad, Chaikovski, Nizhni Novgorod
2004 Angarsk
2005 Perm, Ulan-Ude, Shelekov
20066 Kamensk-Uralski
The table‟s twelve organizations marked in bold are recognized as community foundations by
the Partnership that was established in 2003, and indeed describe themselves as such.
6 According to our information, this community foundation will be formally established in 2006.
Russian Community Foundations Study
41
Twenty-five organizations are included in Table 1. In 2006 it is expected that the number of
Russian organizations that can be considered community foundations, that are registered as
community foundations and/or that have positioned themselves as community foundations will
total about 30. Diagram 1 shows the significant increase in Russian community foundations in
the years following the formation of the first in 1998.
Diagram 1. Number of registered Russian community foundations between 1998 and 2006
1
4
1012
14
2021
2425
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Nu
mb
er
of
reg
iste
red C
Fs
In the late 1990s and early 2000s several international donors entered the scene and joined CAF
in supporting community foundations in Russia: Open Society Institute (Soros Foundation),
Ford Foundation, Mott Foundation, DFID and the Eurasia Foundation7. In 2003, for example,
DFID8 supported a 3-year community foundation development project in Nizhni Novgorod. All
the community foundation representatives with whom we talked emphasized the importance of
grants and support provided by international donors at the early stages of development.
In Moscow in 2000 CAF hosted the first meeting of the Russian community foundations. Since
then such meetings of Russian community foundations have became regular occurrences, with
7 Mainly supported by the USAID
8 Department for International Development, UK
Russian Community Foundations Study
42
the 2001 and 2002 meetings also hosted by CAF. In 2003 the Togliatti Community Foundation
hosted the first annual meeting outside Moscow and the Partnership of Russian Community
Foundations was established, with financial support provided by Ford Foundation through the
Togliatti Community Foundation. The 2004 meeting took place in Tiumen, hosted by the
Tiumen Community Foundation, and the 2005 meeting was hosted by the community foundation
in Penza.
Since 2004 those meetings have been called “National conferences of community foundations”
and have become major events involving several dozen participants representing city
administrations, businesses, international donors and community foundations. For example, the
keynote speakers at the 2005 meeting were the Mayor of Togliatti and one of the top managers
of the Togliatti private bank that helped the Togliatti Community Foundation establish an
endowment.
The Togliatti endowment should be distinctly mentioned here as a milestone in the development
of the community foundation movement in Russia. In 2003 the Togliatti Community
Foundation, with the help of local businesses, established a $1,000,000 endowment. Prior to
that, because of prohibitive Russian legislation, most specialists in Russia considered the
creation of an endowment a utopian dream. The Togliatti Community Foundation and its
business partners demonstrated that it was possible to establish an endowment, even under the
existing circumstances. The endowment has dramatically increased the Togliatti Community
Foundation‟s sustainability and strength, and has become a strong motivator to other
foundations. The Togliatti Community Foundation continues to play a leadership role in Russia
and is seen by many as „the model‟.
In 2004 three other community foundations (Tiumen, Pervouralsk and Chaikovski) reported the
creation of their respective endowments. While they still have numerous technical problems to
solve and a long way to go before building solid endowments, the process is underway and
Russian Community Foundations Study
43
progress will surely be made. It seems that a psychological barrier has been broken: today,
community foundations in Russia can build endowments.
The most recent trend in community foundation development, another milestone if you will, is
the involvement of major corporate players.
SUAL (Siberian-Ural Aluminum) is a global top-ten aluminum company, whose activities
encompass the entire process from bauxite mining through to the production of value-added
aluminum products. SUAL employs 60,000 people and its operations span nine Russian regions,
as well reaching Zaporozhye City in Ukraine. In cooperation with the UNDP9 and USAID
10,
SUAL is implementing a program aimed at development of the regions in which its enterprises
are located. In 2004 SUAL managers learned of the community foundation concept, and
recognized its potential as a relevant tool for regional development. In 2004-2005 SUAL began
establishing local foundations in Shelekhov and Kamensk-Uralski. The SUAL strategy11
is to
start these foundations in cooperation with the city administrations and then involve local
businesses to support them. These foundations could become viable community foundations
over time.
Another important corporate actor is YUKOS – the major Russian oil company. YUKOS
supported the creation of a community foundation in Angarsk in Siberia. CAF-Russia was hired
by YUKOS to implement the foundation and to provide it with technical support and guidance.
The Russian Donors Forum recognized the importance of development of local philanthropy in
various forms. Community foundations were one of the very promising initiatives. Potentially
all of them could become partners or members of the Forum. To get more information about this
potential, the Donors Forum became interested in conducting research on Russian community
9 United Nations Development Program
10 United States Agency for International Development
11 We will discuss it in detail in the next section.
Russian Community Foundations Study
44
foundations. This decision can be considered another milestone in the history of community
foundation development in Russia.
Milestones at a glance:
Mid-90s – CAF introduces and promotes the community foundation idea;
1998 – first Russian community foundation is established in Togliatti;
1998-2000 – Soros Foundation, Mott Foundation, Ford Foundation, Eurasia Foundation, DFID
become involved in community foundation development, with some continuing support to this
day;
1999-2000 – rapid growth in the number of Russian community foundations;
2000 – first meeting of community foundations, hosted by CAF-Russia;
2003 – Community Foundation Partnership established; endowment developed in Togliatti;
2004-2005 – SUAL and YUKOS get involved; Donors Forum considers support to community
foundations by suggesting research into their potential.
Russian Community Foundations: Individual Cases
We begin this section of the report by explaining a bit about Russian community foundation
structures. All community foundations have based their governance structure on the Togliatti
Community Foundation‟s model. Each foundation has a Council of Founders (often inactive
once they have completed their „founding‟ work) as well as a Board of Trustees and a body often
simply called the Board of the Foundation. Formally the Founders have supreme power, but in
reality the Board of Trustees has the power, as it sets strategy and monitors performance. Staff
generally relate most to the Board, the group that has the responsibility for day to day activity.
More detail on governnance is provided later in the report.
Russian Community Foundations Study
45
The profiles describe each foundation‟s general environment and its key activities. All are
enagaged in developing funds and grantmaking and many offer programs as well. Some
programs are directly related to their fund development and granting work, some to NGO
development and some to unrelated activities. There is no agreement within the Partnership
about the scope and type of program that is seen to be acceptable for a community foundation.
The matter of programs will be discussed in more detail later in the paper.
Each profile ends with recommendations for future consideration.
Togliatti
The city of Togliatti, Samara Oblast12
is located in the Central part of Russia on the Volga River
not far from Samara. Its population is 700,000, and the average age of citizens is thirty three.
Togliatti is the capital of the Russian automobile industry: the AVTOVAZ plant in Togliatti
produces the most well-known Russian cars – LADA. The chemical industry is also well
developed in Togliatti and overall the business sector is dynamic and active. Togliatti is also
home to several universities and colleges.
The Togliatti Community Foundation (TCF) was founded in 1998. As noted earlier, CAF-
Russia played an important role in establishing the foundation by providing an initial package of
materials and information, and local government and business became early supporters,
remaining so today.
TCF has a strong and active Board of Trustees that includes representatives of city
administration, city duma13
, and leaders of major businesses (industrial, commercial, banking,
etc). The Togliatti Mayor became the first Chair of the Board of Trustees, and upon election the
new mayor also agreed to assume that position. TCF, through its Board, is governed by the city
12 Oblast is a territorial-administrative unit in Russia like province or state in other countries.
13 City council
Russian Community Foundations Study
46
administrative and business elites and NGOs are not yet represented on Board. From the
beginning TCF became a vital part of Togliatti‟s social fabric and an important tool in the city‟s
development.
TCF Director Boris Tsirulnikov is well known and well respected in the city. His experience in
education, in city government and in the NGO sector has contributed to his effectiveness as a
manager. From the onset he invested much time and energy in the creation of the TCF and he
continues to play a crucial role in its activities. While Boris has formed a strong professional
team to carry out the foundation‟s work, most to whom we spoke consider him one of the major
assets of the TCF.
TCF funding is primarily local. While the foundation used to receive considerable amounts in
grants from foreign donors, its $1,000,000 endowment was developed by local donors and
dependency on foreign grants has been reduced dramatically. A full-time employee is charged
with TCF‟s well-organized and proactive fund development work. The major source of funds
(almost 90%14
) is through donations from local businesses, with several businesses having
named funds – that is, funds with the name of the business and usually directed to specific areas
of interest determined by them.
TCF‟s scope of granting is broad. The Foundation supports projects implemented by NGOs and
by municipal agencies in various fields; TCF distributed about $225,000 to 182 grantees in 2004.
Granting priorities are defined by the Board and the granting process, managed by capable staff,
is transparent and well organized.
TCF owns a well equipped office large enough for the existing team.
14 In 2004
Russian Community Foundations Study
47
Three to four years ago, TCF established an agency – “Delovaya Volga”15
– that operates as a
consulting and training resource centre providing services to the TCF grantees, to other
organizations in Togliatti, and to other Russian community foundations. TCF generously shares
its experience with interested parties and often receives visitors from different regions of Russia
and from abroad.
TCF plays an active and important role in the development of community foundations in Russia.
In particular, it supported the creation of two community foundations in the neighbouring cities
of Zhigulevsk and Oktyabrsk and still maintains strong ties with them. The project in Oktyabrsk
was supported by Ford Foundation. However, these two foundations are not nearly as strong and
sustainable as the TCF.
TCF manages other program activities aimed at developing philanthropy in the city and/or
raising funds for specific purposes. One of these successful programs is the YouthBank.
TCF strongly supported the creation of the Partnership of Russian Community Foundations, as
this development aligned with TCF‟s overall strategy. TCF‟s leader naturally became the
driving force of the Partnership in the early stages of its development. The Ford Foundation‟s
grant to support the development of the Partnership was given to TCF since the Partnership was
informal and had yet no bank account.
The major challenges TCF faces are:
- recruiting new donors among local businesses;
- raising more funds from the existing donors;
- managing growth and the increasing amount and complexity of record keeping,
accounting and paperwork it brings;
15 Business Volga
Russian Community Foundations Study
48
- increasing amount of work with the local fiscal structures (TCF attracts serious attention
from the fiscal structures owing to its innovative nature);
- offering competitive salaries to professional employees and creating career opportunities
for them.
Tiumen
Tiumen, the capital of the Tiumen Oblast in Siberia, is the administrative centre of the major oil
and gas region of Russia. It has a population of over 500,000 and its businesses, industrial
enterprises, universities and colleges combine to make it an active and dynamic city.
The Tiumen Community Foundation was established in 1999, growing out of an existing, active
NGO Resource Centre. The key players bringing about that transformation were the Centre‟s
leader and Director Vera Barova and CAF-Russia. When it became clear that the Resource
Centre needed to raise more money locally, Vera began looking for opportunities to establish a
local fund. She accepted an invitation from CAF-Russia to consider participating in the newly
developing community foundation program and visited Togliatti and later the UK to learn more
about community foundations. Vera learned a lot from Togliatti and used the documents and
process they developed to establish the community foundation in Tiumen.
From 1999 to 2004 the Tiumen CF was governed by its founders: 5 Tiumen businesses that
trusted Vera. In 2004 the founders decided to form a Board of Trustees (9 businesses) whose
obligation would be to provide and raise funds ($3,000 a year or more from each of them).
Tiumen city government knows the community foundation and is positive about its work but has
limited its involvement in community foundation activities by delegating one representative to
its grants committee. The city government conducts its own grant competition.
In the past, Vera Barova has worked with youth organizations, with the Tiumen Committee of
the Communist Party of the USSR, in education, and in business and social welfare. She loves
Russian Community Foundations Study
49
her city and is well known and respected by many Tiumen citizens. Vera is an experienced
manager who has built a strong professional team around her. Most informants told us that Vera
was and is the major asset of the Tiumen CF.
In 1999 the community foundation received a grant from the Eurasia Foundation. This grant was
instrumental in helping the organization develop its own operational sustainability, and begin
local fund development. A CAF grant became another important source of funding, covering
two thirds of the cost of the foundation‟s new office16
. The Tiumen Community Foundation
reports having an endowment, but what they are reporting is in fact the value of the real estate
they now own.
Vera is unsure whether it is sensible to establish traditional endowments in Russia since the
inflation rate is still high; the money will gradually disappear without a proper mechanism to
save and increase it. The major source of funding for Tiumen Community Foundation is local
businesses (80% of the CF budget17
) and foreign grants (18%).
As part of their development strategy, Tiumen Community Foundation combines granting with
the delivery of numerous programs and projects such as “social animation” and conflict
resolution.
The scope of granting is broad. In 2004 the foundation distributed about $36,000 among 29
grantees made up of NGOs and municipal agencies in various fields. Granting priorities are
defined by the Board, which is elected to a 5-year term and includes representatives of the city
administration, businesses and NGOs.
16 They expect to move to the new building in early 2006.
17 In 2004
Russian Community Foundations Study
50
The grant process, which is transparent and well organized, is staffed by two people. Tiumen
Community Foundation also offers programs, some aimed at developing philanthropy, with
others delivering more direct services to the NGO community.
Tiumen Community Foundation presently rents office space from a private audit company and
plans to move to their own office soon. Their current office is well equipped and conveniently
located.
Tiumen Community Foundation was one of the founding members of the Partnership. It hosted
the fifth conference of the Partnership and Vera Barova served as its Chair person in 2004. The
Tiumen Community Foundation's involvement in program activities has been discussed widely
by the Partnership. While some community foundations in the Partnership think that the Tiumen
Community Foundation is not „a real community foundation‟ since it operates as a community
development and resource centre as well as a foundation, there is no consensus on this among the
Russian community foundations.
The major challenges for the Tiumen Community Foundation are:
- increasing the foundation‟s sustainability (own the office, build an effective fundraising
mechanism locally, consider creation of an endowment, etc.);
- increasing the amounts raised locally for grants by involving more businesses;
- developing staff and creating career opportunities for them.
Obninsk
Obninsk, with a population of 100,000 is located in Kaluga Oblast 100 km to the South-West of
Moscow. Obninsk, with its numerous research institutions, is a world-renowned centre for the
study of nuclear science, meteorology and radiology. Interestingly, there are many NGOs in
Obninsk as well – both registered and informal. The city also has a number of small- and
medium-sized businesses.
Russian Community Foundations Study
51
Obninsk Community Foundation (OCF) was registered in 1999 by Mr. Artemiev, who at the
time was Director of the Obninsk orphanage. OCF was established through the project of the
Foundation “Our Children” supported by Eurasia Foundation. Initially it was called Public
Charitable Foundation for Social Development and then was re-registered as the Obninsk
Community Foundation. Mr. Artemiev is a very influential and well-known person in Obninsk,
having had an impressive political career since 1999, which included serving as Chair of the city
duma and election to the Oblast duma. In spite of his current position as Deputy Chairman of the
Kaluga Oblast Duma, he still actively supports the community foundation.
OCF has a Board of Trustees comprised of Mr. Artemiev, a representative of the Agency of
Social Information (Moscow), and a representative of the Obninsk Chamber of Commerce.
Tatyana Klimakova, who also works for a research institute in Obninsk, became OFC‟s
volunteer Executive Director in 2000. Since that year, when the first grant competition was held,
OCF has administered 5 grant competitions, with the municipal budget being the major source of
funding for the grants. In 1999 OCF received a start-up grant from the Eurasia Foundation and
later OCF participated in projects of the Eurasia and Soros Foundations aimed at helping elderly
and disabled people in the city.
In 2004 OCF distributed grants of about $10,000 among 33 grantees. In most cases OCF
grantees were formally registered NGOs working in fields as various and wide-ranging as
gardening to Boy Scouts. The grant process is transparent and well organized, and most grantees
are familiar with its requirements and know how to write project proposals.
OCF does not have ongoing program activities. Its director is equipped to work mostly from
home, though occasionally OCF uses office space at the local children's club. OCF is a full
member of the Partnership of Russian Community Foundations.
Russian Community Foundations Study
52
The major needs of the OCF are:
- for diversification of the sources of funding as it currently depends fully on municipal
money;
- to develop relationships with and involve local businesses;
- to have funds for administrative expenses.
Pervouralsk
Pervouralsk is an industrial city in the Ural mountains (Sverdlovskaya Oblast), with a population
of 130,000. Its major business is the Ural Pipe Plant18
, foremost producer of steel pipes in
Russia and Europe. Another of the city‟s significant businesses produces unique heat-resistant
bricks, while several smaller enterprises manufacture construction materials. Even with such
industry, the average living standards in the city are very modest compared to Moscow or even
to Yekaterinburg.
Pervouralsk Community Foundation (PCF) was registered in 2000. Having learned of the
Togliatti Community Foundation, the Ural Pipe Plant‟s Director- (who was also was the Deputy
of the State Duma of Russian Federation19
) proposed the establishment of a community
foundation in Pervouralsk. Following a visit to the Togliatti Community Foundation by the
Deputy Head of the city administration and Director of a not-for-profit agency, the Director of
Togliatti Community Foundation was enlisted to provide advice on how to establish and promote
the community foundation concept in Pervouralsk. Shortly thereafter the community foundation
was registered by six major businesses in tandem with the city administration.
From the very beginning PCF had close ties with the city administration. Its Director, Vera
Anan'ina, became Executive Director of the foundation at the invitation of the city government,
18 In Russian “Pervouralski Novotrubny Zavod”
19 Presently he is a member of the Chamber of Representatives of the Russian Federation.
Russian Community Foundations Study
53
where she continues to hold the full-time position of Chief of the Youth Department of the City
Government. She manages the community foundation on a volunteer basis, though it takes a
considerable amount of her time. Vera Anan‟ina is very well known and respected throughout
the city, with good connections to business, social agencies and NGOs, and government. Most
people with whom we spoke said that Vera definitely was the face of the foundation – and its
major asset.
The PCF's Board of Trustees20
includes representatives of the city‟s major businesses, the city
government, well-known and respected citizens, and representatives of NGOs (there are still few
of the latter) Directors of enterprises have made a decision to donate certain amounts of money
annually based on their number of employees21
. Contributions from the Ural Pipe Plant (with
about 13,000 employees) are the most significant. City government, in cooperation with
Pervouralsk‟s major enterprises, uses the PCF as a tool for developing the city and funding
projects that, for various reasons, could not otherwise be funded from the city budget.
The major sources of PCF funding are the local businesses that together provided 90% of its
2004 income. Additionally, PCF received grants from foreign donors for development and
program activities. In 2004 PCF reported the creation of a $40,00022
endowment. PCF has
devised various creative forms of fundraising, particularly with small- and medium-sized
businesses where the foundation collects and distributes second-hand equipment, and encourages
businesses to provide direct services to the beneficiaries as a form of donation.
PCF conducts grant competitions on a regular basis. In 2004 they held 6 grant rounds and
distributed grants totaling about $220,00023
among 95 grantees. The foundation has an expert
20 The organizational structure is identical to the Togliatti CF.
21 In 2005 this amount was 200 rubles, or about USD 7 per employee.
22 1,100,000 rubles
23 6,220,000 rubles
Russian Community Foundations Study
54
committee, which includes representatives of major donors and government, to assess grant
proposals and make decisions.
PCF has been helpful in disseminating information on project design and management for the
city, unfamiliar concepts that have since proven to be useful contributions to the development of
the city. With regard to their granting PCF distributes funds on a competitive basis and through
named funds where the donor determines the project goal. The range of the projects supported
or administered by the PCF is very broad. In fact, any project seen somehow to improve the
quality of life in the city could be funded through the Foundation. Examples include buying
specialized medical equipment for the hospital through a grant or the reconstruction of one of the
city‟s important roads, which was administered by the PCF. In the latter example PCF earned
the revenue needed to cover administrative costs. As there are few NGOs in the city, most of the
grants go to municipal institutions or to groups funded through the municipal institutions.
PCF has a small, well-equipped office located in the centre of the city. There are 3 full-time
employees at the foundation, other than Vera. PCF operates mainly as a foundation – that is,
without running its own program activities. PCF is developing a youth program similar to
Togliatti‟s.
PCF readily shares its experience with those interested in their activities. Recently, for example,
they received a grant from the Soros Foundation to disseminate information on community
foundations in the Ural region.
PCF became a full and active member of the Partnership in 2000.
The major challenges PCF faces are:
- a lack of funds to cover administrative expenses;
- an overwhelming amount of work for its volunteer-basis Director;
Russian Community Foundations Study
55
- the need to convince all or the majority of donors to contribute to an endowment rather
than insist on the 100% distribution of all the donations.
Zhigulevsk
Zhigulevsk, with a population of 50,000, is located right across the Volga River from Togliatti.
While the Volga Power Plant is the largest employer and a few of the city‟s smaller businesses
provide job opportunities, many residents look for jobs in Togliatti. The city is economically
depressed, as is evidence by its low living standards, poor roads and poorly kept buildings.
Zhigulevsk Community Foundation (ZCF) was established in 2000, emerging from “The Way
Home”, an existing NGO that worked with children in the local detention centre. The Director
of the Togliatti Community Foundation was one of the NGO‟s Board members and proposed
reorganizing the NGO into a community foundation. The Foundation Charter and other
registration paperwork were the purview of Elena Garshina, who worked at that time as a press
officer for the City Mayor. A teacher from the local college, Olga Momot, was invited to join
Elena and become the Foundation Director. Olga attended a workshop offered by CAF-Russia
on community foundations and through that was able to develop the vision and plan for ZCF.
ZCF assembled a new Board of Trustees that includes the City Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the
executives of two businesses, and the Chairman of the State Pension Fund in Zhigulevsk. The
Board of Trustees does not provide any help on raising funds, and the ZCF leaders have never
asked the Board to do so.
ZCF continued its former program activities related to “The Way Home” and started fundraising
for the grant competition through the individual networks of the ZCF team24
. The total budget
for the first grant competition was about $70025
. Over the course of a year and a half ZCF
24 Two people
25 20,000 rubles
Russian Community Foundations Study
56
managed to raise $1,800 for its second grant competition, primarily from local businesses whose
leaders were known personally to them. In 2004 CAF-Russia provided ZCF with a challenge
grant of $2,000, conditional upon ZCF‟s raising $4,000 as a match.
The ZCF Director is actively involved as a trainer in an international project implemented in
Russia by Penal Reform International, UK (PRI). This important project involves much travel
and so the ZCF Director is often away. Her partner, employed full-time as the director of a
secondary school located in the Zhigulevsk detention centre, is equally busy. Thus the ZCF team
has very limited time in which to develop the community foundation.
Most of the grant applications are received from the municipal agencies and schools as there are
very few NGOs in Zhigulevsk. In 2004 ZCF distributed $1,800 among 6 grantees. ZCF used
procedures for grant competition developed by the Togliatti CF. Three seminars for grant
applicants were conducted.
ZCF has a tiny office in an old building – in Zhigulevsk that is considered good for a non-
governmental organization. ZCF is adequately equipped to run its programs, though internet
connection is slow and of poor quality.
ZCF‟s granting activity is less than their program activity – largely because of their close
continuous involvement with the detention centre.
ZCF is a full member of the Partnership. It has been agreed that the ZCF Director will not attend
the Partnership meetings, in lieu represented at the meetings by the Deputy Director.
The major challenge facing ZCF can be summed up in one word: survival.
Rubtsovsk
Rubtsovsk is located in Siberia to the South-West of Barnaul, not far from the border with
Kazakhstan. Its population is 160,000. Local industry in Rubtsovsk involves the production of
Russian Community Foundations Study
57
agricultural equipment, such as tractors (Rubtsosk is an agricultural centre), and the manufacture
of construction materials.
In 2000, six representatives of small businesses became candidates for the City Duma. They
decided to form a coalition and establish a local foundation to promote social programs. For two
years the new foundation conducted grant competitions without adequate management in place.
The current Director of the Rubtsovsk Community Foundation (RCF), Tatyana Bukanovich, was
a journalist whose initial contact with RCF occurred while interviewing one of its founders at the
time of a new grant competition. In the course of that conversation it was suggested that Tatyana
assume responsibility for RCF‟s public relations in order to promote the community foundation.
Within a few months the founders approved her in the position of the RCF Director.
Tatyana contacted the Kaluga and Togliatti community foundations for start-up information and
then successfully applied to CAF-Russia for a development grant of $5,000. Following visits to
Kaluga and Togliatti, Tatyana attended several meetings whose aim was the creation and
development of the Partnership.
As a journalist, Tatyana is a well-known figure in the city and well respected by the numerous
contacts she has made in the community, including those in the business sector. Her energy and
style are appreciated, as are her easy-going and innovative fundraising campaigns. RCF‟s
interesting fundraising efforts are popular events in the community.
The major source of RCF funding is several dozen local small- and medium-sized businesses.
While there have been no large donations, the amounts raised in the last three years have doubled
every year and by the end of 2004 exceeded $46,00026
. That same year RCF distributed over
$10,000 in grants among 46 grantees – mostly municipal organizations and initiative groups.
There are very few banks in Rubtsovsk and the only one that could help RCF establish an
26 1,300,000 rubles
Russian Community Foundations Study
58
endowment is SBERBANK – all the others lack the independence to make their own decisions.
This endowment development work is in progress. Upon Tatyana‟s initiative the First Deputy of
the Chairman of the Board of FIABANK from Togliatti and the Director of the Togliatti
Foundation met with the Manager of btsovsk‟s Branch office of SBERBANK.
RCF has office space and equipment purchased with grant money provided by the German
Association for Adult Education and CAF.
Owing to Rubtsovsk‟s remoteness and the consequent difficulty of travel, the RCF Director has
less opportunity to participate in the Partnership meetings, though she has attended all the annual
conferences.
The major challenges RCF faces are:
- how to find new ways of increasing the number of donors and amounts raised;
- how to share its unique experience (working with small- and medium-sized businesses)
with others;
- how to establish endowment funds under the existing circumstances.
Saratov
Saratov, with a population of 900,000, is the capital of Saratov Oblast and is located on the
Volga River to the South-East of Moscow. One of the major industrial centres of Russia, it
produces aircraft, heavy gear-cutting machinery, and computers. There is an oil refinery in the
area. Saratov is home to the Saratov State University – founded in 1909, one of the oldest in
Russia – and to several other universities and colleges. The business environment is vibrant, and
the city enjoys an above average living standard.
Saratov Oblast Community Foundation (SOCF) was registered in 2001 after a delegation of the
Saratov Oblast Government visited an exhibition in Perm where they learned of community
foundations. That was followed by a study tour of the Togliatti Community Foundations, whose
Russian Community Foundations Study
59
materials and documents were subsequently used to establish the SOCF. The community
foundation idea was strongly supported and promoted by the Deputy Governor of the Saratov
Oblast and in 2003, with the Governor‟s approval, the first grant competition was held -
$20,00027
was distributed among 27 grantees. In 2004 the foundation held its second grant
competition and awarded more than $ 60,00028
to 30 grantees. One third of these funds were
provided from the regional budget upon governor‟s decision. The Governor‟s actions made the
foundation „legitimate‟, for without his support contributions from business would have been
impossible. The SOCF has a Board of Trustees that includes representatives of the Oblast
administration. In 2004, after the second grant competition, the Governor agreed to Chair the
Board and doubled the Oblast budget contribution to the Foundation. The SOCF was perceived
as one of the structures created under the patronage of the Oblast Governor.
Ilia Chukalin, a student activist currently working on his Ph.D at the Saratov State Socio-
Economic University, was invited by the former Oblast administration to become Director of the
SOCF. He works at the Community Foundation part-time and on a volunteer basis. While the
SOCF, through Ilia, enjoyed strong ties with the previous Oblast administration, after a new
Governor came into power and recruited a new team, its „support team‟ in the Oblast
Government was considerably reduced. However, there are still several officials who remain
supportive of the SOCF and a Community Foundation line item still exists in the Oblast budget.
The SOCF does not have good direct connections with the local businesses. Funds from
business were received mostly due to the Governor's influence.
The SOCF scope of granting does not differ from that of other Russian community foundations,
excepting that its focus is regional and not local. SOCF serves a huge territory and provides
27 600,000 rubles
28 1,870,000 rubles
Russian Community Foundations Study
60
funding to organizations throughout the Oblast; it reported distribution of $67,000 in grants
among 30 grantees in 2004.
After completion of each grant competition, the SOCF conducted an event known as the
Regional Social Forum. The goal of these forums was to facilitate direct dialogue between the
representatives of government, business and NGOs. The Forums were very well received and
strongly supported by the Oblast Administration. About 2000 participants attended the Second
Forum29
that took place at the Saratov Palace of Sports. The grantees received their certificates
at the forums.
SOCF has a very well equipped office in an office building in the centre of the city. Office
equipment and furniture were purchased though a grant from the Eurasia Foundation. There is
currently one person other than the Director working for the SOCF on a part-time and volunteer
basis – a PR specialist.
The major challenges SOCF faces are:
- re-establishing connections with the new Oblast Administration;
- recruiting new members to the Board of Trustees and the Expert Committee;
- developing connections with local businesses.
Penza
Penza is the capital of the Penza Oblast, located to the South-East of Moscow (halfway from
Moscow to Saratov). It has a population of over 500,000. Local industry – chemical, machine
building, electronics, and construction materials – is varied though not thriving. Penza Oblast
regularly receives subsidies from the Federal budget.
29 The First Forum was attended by 1000 people.
Russian Community Foundations Study
61
Founded in 2002, the Penza Oblast Community Foundation30
(POCF) serves the entire Oblast,
not only the city of Penza. The Civic Union Foundation was established in December 2001 (and
registered on February 27, 2002) upon the initiative of the Penza Association “Svetoch”. The
Association had won support for its project “Community Foundation as an instrument for
civilized charity” at the Volga Federal District fair of social and cultural projects “Saratov-
2001”.
The POCF‟s structure is similar to that of the Togliatti CF since the Penza team used information
and materials developed by Togliatti. POCF‟s Board of Trustees, which includes representatives
of the Oblast administration, industrial enterprises and NGOs, determines the foundation‟s
strategy and helps raise funds.
The POCF enjoys recognition in the city of Penza, as all the events it sponsors have good media
coverage. But as the Oblast is big, the dissemination of information throughout the entire
community, especially in the rural areas, is uneven.
The POCF Director, Oleg Sharipkov, previously worked for an NGO and has no government or
business experience. Oleg is a talented systems builder, a talent much appreciated by those
involved in POCF activities, where guidelines and transparently clear rules need to be outlined.
Oleg is an active networker and has numerous connections with people and organizations in
Penza and in Penza Oblast.
POCF has three primary sources of income: grants from foreign donors (46% of the annual
income31
in 2004), donations from local businesses (30%), and Oblast administration funds
(17%). Contributions from individuals are rather small and did not exceed 7% in 2004. POCF
does not currently have an endowment but is working toward it.
30 Foundation “Civic Union”
31 900,000 rubles or $32,000
Russian Community Foundations Study
62
POCF started offering seminars to explain the project approach and to teach potential grantees
how to write project proposals. The seminars were conducted in different parts of the Oblast and
were attended by representatives of the regional administrations, social agencies, schools, and
NGOs. Grant competitions are conducted twice a year at the Oblast level. The POCF has named
projects and named funds.
POCF‟s granting budget is almost equal to their program budget, though again it is not clear to
what extent the programs are directly related to advancing the foundation. The scope of granting
is very broad, though it is noteworthy that a considerable number of the projects funded were
implemented by schools or youth organizations.
POCF has well equipped yet small office space – so small that individual consultations can not
be held on-site and must be held at a neighbouring NGO. In addition to the Director, there are
three other employees: a grants manager, a PR specialist and an accountant.
POCF joined the Partnership in 2002. POCF Director Oleg Sharipkov this year serves as the
Partnership‟s Chair person and the POCF played host to the 2005 Partnership conference.
The major challenges POCF faces are:
- finding new and more effective ways of raising funds from businesses, given the huge
potential existing therein32
;
- establishing an endowment;
- moving to improved office space (ideally, owned by the POCF, which would increase the
foundation's sustainability).
32 According to Oleg's estimation, businesses spend about 100,000,000 rubles ($3.5 million) a year on charitable
programs in Penza oblast.
Russian Community Foundations Study
63
Oktyabrsk
Oktyabrsk, a small town on the Volga River with a population of 25,000, is only a two-hour
drive from Togliatti. While there are a few businesses in the community, the town‟s major
distinction is that it is home to a cargo railway junction. The economic and living standards in
Oktyabrsk are poor and the town is plagued by a high unemployment rate. Residents who cannot
find work in Oktyabrsk often seek employment in Syzran City (a population of 130,000 and a
20-minute drive distant) or even in Togliatti.
Oktyabrsk Community Foundation (OkCF) was established in 2003 – a project implemented by
the Togliatti Foundation and supported by the CAF-Russia. Prior to its formal registration in
Oktyabrsk, the OkCF had been a named fund of the Togliatti CF.
The Oktyabrsk City Mayor was supportive of the CF project and was invited to join the Togliatti
Foundation Board of Trustees. Delegates from Oktyabrsk often visited Togliatti and vice versa;
therefore, the OkCF organization is similar to that of Togliatti‟s.
OkCF‟s Board of Trustees does not meet on a regular basis and its Grants Committee convenes
when the need to distribute money arises. The Mayor refused to join the Board of Trustees,
claiming involvement would be a violation of the existing federal laws. Recently, however, he
supported creation of another foundation in the town (to support construction of the orthodox
church building).
The OkCF Director, Sergey Rodionov, is a very well-known and respected figure in town,
having been a director of a special school for juvenile delinquents and then an elected member of
the city duma, a position he still holds. As a former educator, Sergey naturally has very good
connections with the local administration‟s departments of education and of youth and culture.
The secretary of the department of education works part-time as the OkCF's grants manager.
Russian Community Foundations Study
64
The sources of funding for OkCF are grants received from the foreign and Russian donors (60%
of the 2004 income) and donations from the local businesses (40%); OkCF's overall income in
2004 was about $11,00033
. The local administration provided office space for the CF – a room
in the library.
There is only one NGO registered in Oktyabrsk, so all the grants go to the municipal
organizations: youth theatre, choir, gym, fitness-centre, schools, local museum, etc. In 2004
OkCF distributed about $3,000 among 6 grantees.
OkCF purchased its office equipment with the help of CAF-Russia.
OkCF is a full member of the Partnership.
The major challenge facing OkCF today is its survival under extremely difficult circumstances.
Kaliningrad
Kaliningrad is the capital of Kalingrad Oblast on the Baltic Sea. A major port and a centre of the
fishing industry, Kaliningrad‟s population numbers 430,000 and it is home to several universities
and colleges. Owing to the economic growth it is experiencing, and its geographic location,
numerous connections are developing between Kalingrad Oblast and neighbouring countries –
mainly Poland and Germany.
Kaliningrad Community Foundation (KCF) was established in late 2003, again with the
important influence of the Togliatti Community Foundation. An IT specialist who formerly
worked in Togliatti and moved to Kaliningrad shared the CF idea with his boss at the RIAC –
Kaliningrad Resource Informationаl Analytical Centre. RIAC is an NGO that “supports any
activity and initiative that contributes to establishment of civil society in the Russian exclave on
Baltic Sea34
”. A grant from the Eurasia Foundation allowed RIAC to establish a community
33 330,000 rubles
34 http://www.koenig-ngo.net/riac/eng.html
Russian Community Foundations Study
65
foundation. Eurasia Foundation showed early interest in Kaliningrad, having had direct contact
with the Kaliningrad Governor, who supported the CF idea. As was the case with other
developing foundations, several people from Kaliningrad visited the Togliatti Community
Foundation to learn from its example.
The KCF was founded by RIAC and two businesses, which comprise the Community
Foundation‟s Board. These founders in turn formed a more inclusive Board of Trustees made up
of local business leaders and members of the Oblast administration, though the Governor
decided against being on the Board.
KCF Director Julia Trifonova was hired at its inception in 2003. She holds a degree in
international relations and has experience in both the business and NGO fields. She is equally
active in the city and in the Oblast, making networking a key priority at this stage of KCF‟s
development. Julia is fluent in English and employs that skill to develop her foundation‟s
international connections.
Supported by the KCF founders, the first grant competition was held in 2004 and managed to
fund four youth projects. An amount totalling $3,00035
was distributed. KCF is currently
working on the creation of a named fund for Sovetsk (another town in Kaliningrad Oblast), as
well as exploring opportunities for receiving funds from Germany.
KCF has a well equipped office.
KCF is a full member of the Partnership.
KCF‟s major challenges are:
- fundraising, since the foundation is just in „take off‟ position;
- fostering international connections (support from the Partnership would be extremely
important);
Russian Community Foundations Study
66
- working with the major businesses represented in the Oblast (support from the
Partnership would be extremely useful in this case as well since its headquarters are
outside the Oblast).
Chaikovski
Chaikovski is located to the east of Moscow in Perm Oblast on the Kama River, not far from
Izhevsk. It has a population of over 100,000 and its major industries are energy production
(power plant), textile and thread, and rubber. Although economic growth is slow, Chaikovski is
the only city in the Perm region where the population grew in the last few years.
Chaikovski Community Foundation (CCF) was registered as a Community Foundation in 2004,
but that in fact was a re-registration of the existing “The Good Order” City Foundation
established in 1999. Michael Chernov, founder of the previous incarnation and now Director of
the CCF, learned of the community foundation concept from Boris Tsirulnikov of the Togliatti
Community Foundation, whom he had met while working on development of “The Good
Order”.
Michael has an extensive personal network: not only does he have experience with youth
organization and NGOs, but he is well known to residents as a karate master and leader of the
local Karate School. Michael is a good communicator and an experienced manager, and people
with whom we spoke in Chaikovski consider Michael the „engine‟ and main asset of the CCF.
The Council of Founders is the governing body in the CCF. It forms the Board of Trustees, the
Executive Board, and hires the Executive Director. Currently the Executive Board is comprised
of three individuals: a Director and two representatives of the city administration (one of them is
the Deputy Mayor responsible for social affairs). Both Michael and the CCF are highly
respected in the city.
35 85,000 rubles
Russian Community Foundations Study
67
The major source of funding for CCF is donations from private businesses – over 73% of 2004‟s
funds were raised from local businesses. Interestingly, 8% of donations are from individuals,
while contributions from the local and regional budgets made up 19% of its 2004 local income36
.
In 2004 CCF reported a $3,200 endowment – the endowment in this case refers to CCF receiving
shares of the local businesses.
The CCF administered three grant competitions and distributed $15,000 in grants in 2004, and
that year also saw the creation of their first named fund. In most cases the target groups of its
granting were children and youth. Motivated by the Togliatti example, CCF has also started a
YouthBank. The CCF has a network of volunteers overseen informally by Michael, and this
group is deemed an important asset of the foundation.
CCF has office space and all necessary equipment.
CCF is a full and active member of the Partnership.
The major challenges CCF faces are:
- forming an endowment when there are no banks and no big companies that could
contribute the initial amount to start it;
- raising sufficient funds when getting small amounts from numerous sources;
- using companies' shares as a form of endowment – will it work?
- inducing large businesses to give to a work in progress.
Nizhni Novgorod
Nizhni Novorod Oblast (NNO) is located in the centre of the European part of Russia, at the
confluence of the two great rivers the Volga and the Oka, occupying a territory of 80,000 square
miles. The industrial sector produces about 40% of the gross regional product and is generally
36 812,000 rubles or $29,000
Russian Community Foundations Study
68
known by its highly developed engineering and machine production. The Oblast is a leader in
small business development, in which 20% of the working population is involved. About 3.7
million people live in the Oblast (1.3 million in the city of Nizhni Novgorod), 78% of which is
urban.
Nizhni Novgorod, the city, is the business and cultural centre of the vast Volgo-Vyatsky region.
With a population of 1.5 million, it is the third largest city in Russia and is the capital of Nizhni
Novgorod Oblast. As one of the key industrial centres in Russia, the GAZ Corporation, the
manufacturers of cars (VOLGA) and trucks (GAZ, GAZEL), is headquartered in Nizhni
Novgorod. It is also home to a major shipbuilding company, as well as a company that produces
engines. Nizhni Novgorod has several universities and colleges, theatres and museums, and its
residents enjoy a living standard that is considered above average.
Nizhni Novgorod‟s business environment is dynamic and vibrant. Most major international
companies and international development agencies have a presence there, as the positive
economic development, favorable geographical location and well-developed transportation
infrastructure make Nizhni Novgorod highly attractive to investors.
Nizhni Novgorod Partnership Community Foundation (NNPCF), serving the entire Oblast, was
established in 2004 as part of the partnership between the regional government and the British
Ministry for International Development. The NNPCF‟s mission is to raise funds locally and
distribute money in grants to support civic initiatives in the social, cultural and educational
spheres, among others. NNPCF is currently tasked with administering the small grants program
implemented as one of the components of the REAREF program. NNPCF‟s founders are Nizhni
Novgorod NGO Association “Sluzhenie” which had been working on the community foundation
concept for a number of years, and the Nizhni Novgorod Association of Manufacturers and
Enterpreneurs.
Russian Community Foundations Study
69
NNPCF Director Vladimir Nefedov, Ph.D, an assistant professor at the Volgo-Vyatkski
Academy of Civil Service, has worked for the Foundation since 2005. NNPCF has two
management boards: a Board of Trustees made of representatives of three sectors of the region:
government, business and NGOs, and a Board that performs two functions – overall management
and serves as a Grants Committee that assesses project proposals and makes funding decisions).
NNPCF has 3 staff members in addition to the Director: a deputy director, a grants manager and
an accountant.
The only source of funding for NNPCF is the grant from the British Ministry for International
Development (BMID), and its primary responsibility thus far has been to distribute money it
receives from BMID.
In 2004 and the first half of 2005 four grant competitions were held; 57 grants totalling
$192,00037
were distributed. All grantees were formally registered NGOs and state and
municipal social agencies of Nizhni Novgorod region.
NNPCF has a well equipped office.
NNPCF joined the Partnership in 2004 as an associated member. In 2005 NNPCF became a full
member of the Partnership of Community Foundations.
The major challenge for the NNPCF is sustainability without BMID money. While all NNPCF‟s
energies are currently directed toward implementing the BMID project, it must start building
sustainability mechanisms.
Angarsk
The creation of a community foundation in Angarsk in 2004 was a joint effort initiated by CAF-
Russia and YUKOS, the major Russian oil company. YUKOS supports social development in
the regions where it operates and hired CAF to assess conditions in several locations and to
Russian Community Foundations Study
70
advise on where to establish a community foundation. And so the conditions were deemed
favourable and the recommendation was made: Angarsk. CAF specialists worked in Angarsk
with the local government, NGOs, and businesses to explain the community foundation concept
and to assemble a group of founders. CAF also aided with the recruitment of an Executive
Director and professional staff.
The Angarsk Community Foundation (ACF) was founded by a local construction company, an
NGO and the Association of Businessmen. The ACF Board included businessmen,
representatives of local administration and NGOs, all well-known and respected citizens. ACF‟s
initial funding was provided by YUKOS. The first grant competition held by ACF was aimed at
supporting summer activities programs for the children of Angarsk. Since 2004 the ACF has
conducted five grant competitions and has administered the municipal grants program.
Including the Director, the ACF consists of a four-member team, and only the Grant Manager
works full-time. The ACF Director, Nikolay Barkhatov, is well known in the city, owing to his
work as an independent journalist and his position as Deputy of the City Duma.
The ACF still depends strongly on YUKOS and CAF assistance, but its goals are to develop
fundraising activities and to work toward its sustainability.
37 5,420,000 rubles
Russian Community Foundations Study
71
Kamensk-Uralski, Shelekhov, Nadvoitsy
In February 2001 the SUAL Group signed a social partnership agreement with all heads of
municipal units in the territories where the Group runs enterprises.
This agreement is unique in that management of the Groups enterprises and the managing
company, administrations of cities and regions, representatives of various municipal agencies
and public structures become equal partners in making decisions on the choice of prospective
directions for social and economic development, optimization of interbudgetary relations in
regions, improvement of local health services and education and development of civic initiative
mechanisms.
A Coordination Council for social partnership and a working group were established to
implement the Agreement and to manage current operations. As part of the implementation of
decisions of the Coordination Council in January 2004 the SUAL Group, one of the world‟s ten
largest aluminum companies, signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) to work as equal partners to encourage
economic and social development in Russian communities where SUAL operates. This new
partnership between USAID‟s Russia mission and a Russian company is the first of its kind.
The partnership‟s targeted areas of development include local governance and institutions,
healthcare and infrastructure, small businesses and community organizations. Another aim of
the partnership is to increase the involvement of citizens in local decision making.
According to the memorandum, SUAL and USAID finance joint projects on a parity basis. The
partnership‟s activities will directly improve the quality of people‟s lives in diverse locations,
from Irkutsk in Siberia to Kandalaksha in the north-west to Volgograd in the south. Pilot areas
being considered for the first stage of the program (2004-2006) included:
- Kamensk-Uralski, the third largest town in Sverdlovsk region (Population 185,000),
Russian Community Foundations Study
72
- Shelekhov, Irkutsk region (Population 60,000),
- Nadvoitsy, Karelia Republic (Population 19,000).
SUAL and USAID intend to design and co-fund specific activities in the pilot regions, drawing
on existing and prior USAID activities and models operating elsewhere in Russia. One of the
objectives of this partnership project is to establish community foundations in all three cities
mentioned above. CAF-Russia and the Siberian Centre for Civic Initiatives (Novosibirsk) are
participating in the program and providing technical assistance.
Although the project is still in its initial stages we decided to include information on it in our
report as its approach to the creation of community foundations is quite different from other
examples. Perhaps the project signifies a new stage, a promising new model that could be used
both inside and outside Russia.
The key elements of the SUAL approach to the creation of a community foundation are:
- conduct a front-end analysis to understand the local context and develop a community
foundation model most relevant to the existing circumstances;
- consult and cooperate with the city government, key community leaders and businesses
present in the area;
- develop proper community foundation structure and systems;
- invite professional agencies to provide advice, training and technical assistance;
- consider charity as a professional instrument to address community social issues;
- hire a professional manager;
- provide start-up money together with the major companies operating in the region (and
maybe even set up an endowment from the very beginning);
Russian Community Foundations Study
73
- invite a few sustainable and respected local businesses to join the founding members of
the community foundation to avoid the domination of big businesses in determining the
community foundation strategy;
- stay open to new donors and over a few years expand the local donors' base and get
rooted in the local community;
- make the foundation transparent to community to ensure its trust.
It‟s too early to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of this approach, as the work is
in progress. However, the future study of the Kamensk-Uralski and Shelekhov CFs' experience
may prove very interesting.
Organizational Structures of the Russian Community Foundations
While adjusted to Russian legislation and culture, Russian community foundations‟
organizational structures are consistent with community foundation traditions worldwide. They
include governing bodies and staff.
Governing bodies are broadly representative of the communities they serve, but draw most
heavily on business participation. Representation varies from foundation to foundation and
depends on the history of a particular foundation. A community foundation‟s governing body
ensures adequate human and financial resources and actively monitors and evaluates the
organization‟s chief executive officer.
Staff includes an Executive Director and usually several specialists: an accountant, a grants
manager, a PR specialist, and a secretary. Depending on the community foundation‟s financial
situation, staff could work full time, part time or on a volunteer basis.
All the Russian community foundations have adopted the organizational structure developed by
the Togliatti Community Foundation.
The typical Russian community foundation structure includes the following (see Diagram 2):
Russian Community Foundations Study
74
1. Council of Founders made up of people or organizations who formally established the
CF. Formally, the Council of Founders has the supreme power in organization.
According to a Foundation's Charter the Council of Founders determines its strategy and
policies, hires the Executive Director, and monitors and evaluates him/her.
2. A Board of Trustees is formed by the Founders. This Board controls the CF‟s activities,
and monitors and evaluates them, as well as provides assistance in and advice on
community foundation development and ensures adequate financial resources. Usually
the Board of Trustees includes the major donors.
3. A Board of the Foundation is the collective management unit. It approves the community
foundation‟s programs, assesses grant proposals, identifies the successful applicants and
makes final decisions regarding the grant amounts.
4. A Commission for Financial Control monitors the foundation‟s financial activities and
produces annual reports on them.
5. Staff implement all community foundation activities.
Diagram 2. Russian CF organizational structure38
Council of Founders
Staff
Board of the
Foundation
Board of TrusteesCommission for
Financial Control
Diagram 2 shows the organizational structure of the Togliatti Community Foundation. Today
there are three individual founders (members of the Council of Founders39
), fourteen members of
38 Retrieved from the TCF website http://www.fondtol.org/index.php?a=show&idlink=16 on November 20, 2005.
Russian Community Foundations Study
75
the Board of Trustees, eight members of the Board of the Foundation and three members of the
Commission for Financial Control. The Togliatti Mayor chairs the Board of Trustees, and this
Board, in fact, has the supreme power in organization: it determines the foundation‟s strategy
and policies, and monitors and evaluates the Executive Director. The Council of Founders is not
active but still formally has supreme power. The Commission for Financial Control is the audit
committee.
Common Themes
In this section we describe common themes that emerged from the data collected. These themes
will be further developed and discussed in Chapter 4.
CAF-Russia played and is still playing an important „change agent‟ role in creating
community foundations in the country. Today CAF-Russia combines several important
functions:
- provides financial support through challenge grants to the community foundations
- provides technical assistance to them;
- conducts research and promotes the community foundation concept at different levels;
- provides consultations to companies and local administrations that wish to establish
community foundations.
Grants from foreign donors were very important to the Russian community foundations,
especially at the early stages of their development.
The success of the Togliatti Community Foundation was one of the key factors in the rapid
development of community foundations in Russia. All the community foundations examined
and adopted the TCF experience. It was especially important for local administrations to
39 One of them is the Director General of CAF Stephen Ainger (UK).
Russian Community Foundations Study
76
consider as a model. TCF was proactive in becoming a community foundation advocate and
consulting agency throughout Russia.
Initiators of the creation of Russian community foundations were varied: CAF-Russia;
business+CAF; business or a group of businesses on their own; local or regional
administration; candidates for the local, regional or state Duma; Duma Deputy from the
respective city; local activist, community foundation leader; foreign donor; Togliatti
Community Foundation; and local/regional NGOs. A community foundation‟s nature and
the challenges it faces depend to a great extent on the initiators.
There are two approaches to the creation of community foundations in Russia: a new
organization or founded on the basis of an existing NGO. In the second case the community
foundation could start as an NGO program or could become one of the named funds of the
existing community foundation in the neighbouring city or in the region.
Most Russian community foundations combine features of „pure foundations‟ that raise and
distribute money with program activities aimed at community development. There is no
consensus among the Russian community foundations on the Foundation activities/Program
activities ratio – it seems to depend on the community foundation‟s history and its leader's
background. And there is no agreement about what the word “programs” really means. It
could mean programs aimed at developing philanthropy (a key part of a community
foundation‟s work) or it could mean activities aimed at community development and citizen
involvement or they could mean any other kind of activities not related to the first two. Later
in the paper we will comment on the advantages and disadvantages of community
foundations engaging in programs that are not linked to their mission of fund development
and granting.
There are three patterns of funding. Russian community foundations could have:
- a few donors (or even a single donor) that provide the major part of funds;
Russian Community Foundations Study
77
- many donors that provide small donations;
- a combination of the two patterns mentioned above.
Sources of funding include:
- business,
- government,
- foreign grants,
- individual donations (insignificant now but growing slowly),
- a combination of two or more of the above-mentioned sources.
Endowment – in its classic form – cannot be established in Russia due to existing legislative
norms. The situation in the Togliatti Community Foundation is somewhat unique. One has
to consider that Samara Oblast where TCF operates is one of the two regions40
in Russia
where businesses have a 5% tax exemption (local tax) on the money they donate. In other
places some other models should be explored.
It's much more difficult (if not impossible) to develop a community foundation in small
towns. For instance there is not yet any no evidence that a community foundation could
develop in a city with a population of less than 50,000.
40 The second region is Moscow Oblast.
Russian Community Foundations Study
78
While perhaps sustainable community foundations could be started by corporations in such
cases, there is no evidence of that yet. It is more likely that a community foundation could
be sustained in a city with a population between 100,000 and 1,000,000, all of which would
have enough resources, potential donors, activists and initiative groups. As well, there is not
yet any evidence of a sustainable community foundation in a Russian city with a population
of over 1,000,000 people.
A certain level of support from the local administration is helpful for a Russian community
foundation‟s existence. But the nature of relationship with the local (regional) governments
varies from very close, where the community foundation is under the government‟s control
to a great extent to distanced, where local government is aware of the community foundation
and provides occasional moral support or small amounts of money.
Most community foundations have government representatives on their Board. However,
there is no consensus on the role of the Mayor or Governor. Some community foundations
consider it important or even crucial to have the Mayor or Governor as a Chairman of the
Board, while others strongly disagree. It's important to note that the Mayors and Governors
themselves have sometimes refused to take that position.
Another related issue is receiving money from the state budget. Most community
foundations agree that it is acceptable to administer municipal grants programs. There also is
general agreement among Russian community foundations that state money should not
constitute the major part of their budget.
Community Foundation structures look a bit confusing, especially to non-Russian audiences,
as the names of the Boards and Councils are not in line with the western tradition. But the
structures reflect current Russian legislation. The key contradiction is not related to the
naming but is about the power. Formally – according to the Charter – the Council of
Russian Community Foundations Study
79
founders has the supreme power in organization. Informally in many community
foundations the key governing body is the Board of Trustees. This contradiction will not
likely cause any particular problems unless a group of unhappy founders appears.
The leaders (executive directors) of the community foundations play a very important role.
Ideally they have the following combination of qualities: good knowledge of the city;
numerous connections in the city, good networking and communication skills (presentation
skills in particular); contacts with local administration, understanding of how the government
works; management skills; contacts with businesses, ability to deal with businesses and to
find the right mode and language for that; ability to work under strong pressure; problem-
solving skills, creativity; high energy, ability to work long hours.
Backgrounds that help develop the above-mentioned qualities:
- experience of work for the government;
- management experience (in any sector of the economy);
- work that helped establish numerous contacts and developed personal networks:
journalism, civic activism, youth organizations, Communist Party of the Soviet Union or
Comsomol (youth communist organization);
- experience in business.
In most cases Russian community foundation leaders are selected/hired based on local
visibility, on how well known they are in the city. There are only a few cases when the
founders chose to hire professionals from outside the city or new to the city.
Russian Community Foundations Study
80
Chapter 4. Discussion of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
What Is ‘Community Foundation’ in Russia?
Russian community foundations present themselves as having certain characteristics.
All community foundations, in common, speak of themselves as being an organization tied to a
geographic community. For some this means a municipality, for others a larger region. The link
with a geographic entity is spoken of with pride. Staff, donors, and grant recipients alike all
speak of their love and hope for their community, their recognition of issues and challenges their
community faces, often related to poverty, youth disengagement, and human rights, and their
wish for the foundation to partake in the makings of a better and stronger community. It is not
unusual to hear the foundation described as a vehicle for addressing socially significant issues in
the community. So, connection with physical, geographic community was universally
acknowledged, as was an emphasis on addressing critical issues in the community.
Also common to all with whom we spoke is the emphasis on the foundation as a fund, and in a
few instances, a fund that will be available forever. For all of them that means access to
financial resources, usually from two main sources: local businesses and governments. Being a
fund doesn‟t necessarily mean that the foundation holds the funds within its own institution,
though some do. It means more generally that the foundation can access funds, which in turn are
dispersed as grants to community organizations.
Businesses, often under the influence of their leaders, are the primary source of local or regional
funds for all community foundations. Quite frequently community foundation staff speaks of its
role in encouraging and assisting businesses to grow new funds or add to current ones.
Governments, mostly local, are the next most important sources of funds, usually by inviting
community foundations to be their partners in certain areas in which they disperse money, such
as culture and recreation. Several foundations also speak of the early funds they had received
from CAF-Russia and other donors such as USAID or Eurasia Foundation, noting that these
Russian Community Foundations Study
81
funds had played a role in leveraging local funds, but more importantly had helped the
foundations get started operationally.
Many, but not all foundations, note their intention to build permanent funds. They see this as
being an important long-term goal, but stressed how challenging this is in an environment where
the concept of giving is underdeveloped, the notion of endowment is unfamiliar, and there is
little by way of tax incentive in place to encourage it. Some endowments are in place, and in at
least one instance, we were told that the permanent fund is in real estate – making it a permanent
asset, but not producing income for granting. Others with whom we spoke do not see building
permanent funds as being a focus in the near future, and indeed we occasionally heard that this
concept requires more study and consideration. However, whether for a permanent fund or for
immediate granting, it is not unusual to hear foundations speak of their role in developing the
culture of giving.
Granting, a third characteristic mentioned by all foundations, is at the heart of their work. The
scope of granting varies from foundation to foundation, as does the amount available. In general
we observed that well implemented granting processes, drawing on the advice of expert
committees, are a source of pride for the foundations. In conjunction with training, many people
with whom we spoke mentioned the support they provide to grantee applicants, either through
workshops or advising. Many foundations also reported that they hold ceremonies, often
inviting the public, on the occasion of distributing the grant funds.
Foundations describe themselves as working in partnership with businesses and/or governments,
either locally or regionally. The most obvious expressions of this were through named funds set
up by businesses and the handling of grant processes for governments. However, other kinds of
partnership were mentioned. Among them are working with businesses on special events,
sharing costs (including salaries in a few instances) and locating programs, such as NGO training
in the foundation, or even launching programs that will move away from the foundation in time.
Russian Community Foundations Study
82
Often we often heard that community foundations are able to bridge relationships between
government, business and civil society.
All foundations describe themselves as being governed by a Board of Trustees and a Board of
Directors. In general they have all adopted a layered structure that is composed of local/regional
government and business leaders. In some cases NGO leaders, especially from beneficiary
organizations, also serve on the Board, and we learned that occasionally members of a founding
organization, such as another NGO, also have a foundation board position.
Characteristic of all foundations is staffing. In most cases staff is paid; occasionally they are
volunteer. In some cases specialist staff (in granting or PR for instance) is in place, alongside the
executive director, but in no case does the Board of Trustees actually run the foundation. We
heard consistently that staffing is the key to success, most often personified through the
leadership qualities of the executive director. Indeed, during more than one visit, skilled staff,
connected to key stakeholders and knowledgeable about the community, was described as the
greatest asset of the foundation.
Community foundations are proud of their efforts toward gaining visibility in their community,
but recognize the distance they have to go before becoming really well known. Some referred to
newspaper or radio stories, others to brochures and reports and others to events and
presentations. Some have specialized staff to work in this area and many count on the
participation of community leaders and their willingness to talk about their support of the
foundation as a way to gain credibility, as well as profile and visibility.
Finally, three community foundations have active YouthBank programs under way, with at least
two others giving consideration to this program. YouthBank, which exists throughout the global
community foundation network, though under a different name in North America, is an
organized program to engage youth in community participation. Through the program, whereby
funds made available from the local foundation are granted to community initiatives that
Russian Community Foundations Study
83
somehow focus on youth, participants learn about their community, the needs and issues it faces
and how volunteering and participation can help address those issues. Youth participants also
learn leadership skills and develop their own sense of commitment and confidence. The Russian
YouthBank program shares much in common with similar European programs, though seems to
draw most of its inspiration and learning from the USA, through resources made available by the
Mott Foundation.
In summary, community foundations in Russia describe themselves as geographically located
funds guided by a Board of Trustees comprised of business and government leaders, and led by
skilled staff, whose purpose is to receive funds for distribution through grants to a range of
community organizations. Each of these characteristics will be elaborated upon in the next
sections of the chapter. Before that, we offer the following charts, made available to us by the
Partnership following the 2005 meeting of network members and associates. The first lists
characteristics full members of the Partnership are expected to demonstrate and associate
members strive toward (Table 2). The second shows some statistics in various functional areas
that describe community foundations (Table 3).
Russian Community Foundations Study
84
Table 2. Characteristics full members of the Partnership are expected to demonstrate (Partnership of Russian Community Foundations, 2003)
Formal status Formal status of a Russian charitable organization.
Name The organization‟s name includes the words "Community Foundation".
Activities Raises funds and gives grants.
Endowment Has an endowment, the minimum size of which is determined by the Partnership Council once a year.
Services Supports charitable activities and community projects mainly in its respective geographic area through giving
grants, consultations and other services. Grants should be given on a competitive basis and grant competitions
should be organized regularly.
Needs assessment Conducts ongoing monitoring of needs and requests of citizens in its respective area and considers those needs
and requests in its activities.
Innovation Is a community leader and develops philanthropy and grant policies through innovative approaches.
Independence Is completely independent from other organizations and is able to provide support to local community on the
basis of independent assessment.
Boards composition Its Board, Grant Committee and Advisory Board should include people representing all three sectors of the
economy. Those people in turn should involve other citizens in foundation activities.
Annual reports Publishes annual reports on its activities.
Management and operations Has clear and transparent management principles, is open and provides equal opportunities.
Goals, strategy, systems, tools Has clear goals, a strategy to achieve them, plans, systems, tools and methods to evaluate the results.
Russian Community Foundations Study
85
Table 3. Expenses of Russian CFs in various functional areas in 2004
Expenses ($)
Togli
atti
Obnin
sk
Rubts
ovsk
Tiu
men
Niz
hni
Novgoro
d
Zhig
ule
vsk
Pen
za
Kal
inin
gra
d
Okty
abrs
k
Chai
kovsk
y
Per
voura
lsk
Sar
atov
Tota
l
Grant
programs 2,380,000 318,100 362,030 808,359 920,000 50,000 380,000 85,200 90,000 392,846 6,659,502 1,001,000 13,536,695
Other
program
activities 5,205,000 0 627,930 9,053,286 0 1,520,000 320,000 0 24,297 133,549 674,518 0 17,569,787
Admin
expenses 3,187,000 8,400 337,846 2,249,119 1,016,000 380,000 210,000 84,754 214,747 429,418 270,756 195,638 8,586,485
Endowment 6,356,000 0 0 201, 265 0 0 0 0 0 90,000 1,100,000 0 11,057,265
Total 17,128,000 318,100 1,327,806 12,312,029 1,936,000 1,950,000 910,000 169,954 329,044 1,055,813 12,004,776 1,196,638 50,750,232
Russian Community Foundations Study
86
The Core Functions of Russian Community Foundations
This section covers the core functions of a community foundation, and in particular how they are
addressed in Russia.
Developing Funds
We begin with giving. The financial resources available to a community foundation are the
single most important means to an end. By that we mean that without funds to give away as
grants, community foundations could not carry out their mission of improving the quality of life
in their community. So, Russian community foundations, as foundations elsewhere, place a high
value on their relations with donors – with those who give in order for grants to be made. And
they are doing that in a country where only a relatively small group in the population is in a
position to make charitable gifts.
As noted above, the culture of giving is not well developed in the new Russia. Historically, in
pre-communist times, giving was encouraged by the church and also occurred within and
amongst family. While some of the church-raised charitable funds found their way to „doing
good‟ in the community, and family support was important to individual success and wellbeing,
there was not a general sense of the community being responsible for distributing its resources
for the benefit of those less fortunate. This phenomenon is in no way unique to Russia; the
history of charitable giving is the same in many parts of the world. What then altered this history
in Russia, as described earlier in the report, was the effect of the communist system. Now, in the
post-communist era, the culture of giving is only in the early days of revival, and it is not likely
to manifest itself in the manner in which it appeared in the past.
Russian community foundations understand this reality. Wisely, they have begun their efforts to
encourage giving by reaching out to local, regional or national businesses. According to the
2004 annual report issued by the Partnership (Partnership of Russian Community Foundations,
Russian Community Foundations Study
87
2005), 90% of funds came from business, though it is not clear if the Partnership included funds
for granting made available through municipal budgets (and hence, perhaps, not gifts or funds) in
their calculation. Nevertheless, this is a striking statistic when considering Russian community
foundations in relation to other countries‟ sources of funds.
For their part, businesses have several clear reasons for wanting to be donors to community
foundations. Many, perhaps most, are inundated with requests for help by individuals and
organizations. While some are frustrated by what they see as begging and a nuisance, others are
unable to respond to the sheer volume of requests, and still others are seeking ways to be good
employers and good citizens. For many, all of these factors have combined to motivate them to
become associated with a community foundation. So, largely as a result of knowing the leader
of the community foundation or peers associated with it, and wanting to address the realities
noted above, they have become donors.
Businesses tend to give by setting up what is known as a named fund, or what community
foundations in other countries might call a donor advised fund. The fund carries the name of the
business and is likely to be designated for a particular cause or group, or in some cases for a
particular organization, such as a cultural or education centre. The funds, for the most part, are
not endowed – that is, they are not permanent – and so each year they are renewed and it is
hoped, made larger. In general it appears that business is open to a portion of the fund
contributing to the foundation‟s administrative expenses. In some instances senior managers
from the business will engage in the granting process by reading applications, advising the
foundation or consulting with colleagues in the work place.
Why the community foundation? One simple answer is that there are no other vehicles through
which businesses can do their giving, though of course they could give directly to organizations.
Many are reluctant to do that, for reasons described earlier – too many requests and little
Russian Community Foundations Study
88
capacity to make good decisions. So there are more significant reasons for their choice. First,
many community foundation staff leaders are well known to business people and have, or are
able to easily gain, trust and confidence. Second, there is no doubt some peer pressure –
competitiveness – exists among business leaders. Third, community foundations have positioned
themselves as being able to help ensure accountability and transparency on the part of the grant
recipients, as will be described below. Businesses recognize and appreciate that foundations
have expertise in this area. A fourth factor is that community foundations tend to be close to
local government, and for some businesses, though certainly not all, their being associated with
the community foundation may give them stature with government. And last but not least,
business leaders see that they have a role in addressing some of the pressing issues all around
them and legitimately believe that community foundations are a resource – in fact, a partner – in
doing so.
For their part, community foundations clearly see business as their key ally in addressing their
goals. They are careful to maintain relationships in various ways – mostly through personal
relationships and contacts. They see themselves in partnership with business and have as a goal
encouraging more businesses to become donors, sometimes by asking business leaders to
approach their peers. While these personal connections are important, there are some reports of
resistance from those not in company leadership roles and some hint that business giving is more
in the spirit of individual giving – which is to say the decisions about how much and for what are
made by the company‟s head or at least senior management and are in fact that person‟s way of
making donations.
This heavy reliance on business giving, appropriate as it is in current circumstances, raises a few
issues. One is related to the issue of developing a culture of giving. Many businesses reported
that they had been doing charitable giving independently for a few years, but that they now feel
Russian Community Foundations Study
89
better about their giving through the foundation. But are they giving more than in the past? Or
is it the same amount of money that they would have given before, only given in a different way
now? The answer perhaps lies somewhere in the middle, but it behooves community
foundations to keep in mind that their role is to encourage new giving – that is, bigger amounts
and from new donors – as part of their overall work.
A second issue is linked to individual giving. While there is no incentive through the tax system
for charitable giving, and indeed some individual giving is reported, much of the local wealth
lies with business leaders. Yet very few reported that they give as individuals, believing,
perhaps rightly, that their contribution to the community‟s health is, at least in part, through
providing employment – which in fact means greater investment in their company. Nonetheless,
if the giving spirit is to develop, some leaders will need to step forward and make the act of
giving a public one – they are the best-placed citizens to do so.
Foundation growth, in the view of some with whom we met, will be limited until the culture and
environment for giving and volunteering changes. Business leaders are among those who can
influence this by separating personal giving from business giving, without in any way reducing
the importance of business giving.
Individual giving (and, in some ways, increased business giving) is hampered by the absence of
tax incentives. While this was raised several times during our research, and indeed is being
addressed at all levels of government, though somewhat slowly, there is no evidence anywhere
in the world that generosity is influenced solely by tax incentives. Tax incentives play a role in
stimulating very large gifts, but do not in general affect small gifts from most people. While the
financial capacity for significant giving may still be low in Russia, community foundations may
want to think about ways they can balance their important focus on business with a focus in ways
to stimulate giving from citizens: the culture of giving. There are numerous examples around the
Russian Community Foundations Study
90
world of the power of small gifts from many citizens - Russian community foundations may
wish to draw on them.
Giving to Russian community foundations is not only financial. Time and time again we heard
about generous gifts in kind. Sometimes this was office space, sometimes free TV spots or
advertising, sometimes even salaries being covered – and often local government was the donor.
It is easy to underestimate both the financial and the motivational aspects of these gifts, for they
serve to encourage and send a signal of recognition about the importance of community
foundation work, as well as offer tangible support. Not for a moment should these gifts be
downplayed, but a wise community foundation will think of the long term and what will happen
after they are no longer so readily available.
In some ways, community foundations do indeed think about the long term. Many of them are
working toward establishing permanent funds, known also as endowments. But the growth is
slow for several reasons. The concept of endowment is not well known or understood and may
even be received with cynicism and doubt. Today‟s needs are so urgent that it is impossible for
many to think about putting money away for the future. And if businesses in Russia are like
others elsewhere in the world, then they want to be seen as being effective today, as making
good communities for their employees and investors. Finally, there is no legal or tax framework
for endowments: as one person said to us, the legal framework for foundations encourages giving
money away, not saving it.
Yet, endowments are beginning to grow. The Partnership reported that as of December 31, 2004
a total of 33,380,000 rubles (just over $1.1 million USD) were endowed, and that amount is
growing. However, it must be noted that those endowments exist in but 4 community
foundations, while the others have not yet begun that work. A few of the donors were
businesses, even fewer individuals, and some funds were from external sources. In addition to
Russian Community Foundations Study
91
the expected form of endowments, two other examples are worth noting. One is a community
foundation who has received funds to buy a building and sees this as their permanent asset.
While one could argue that this permanent fund reduces the amount available for granting, the
idea is that the site will be available to nonprofit groups for use in various ways, and therefore a
support to them and their sustainability. Another unusual way of building an endowment, not
fully clear at this stage, is to acquire shares in a business, with a dividend being paid out for
granting.
Like everywhere else in the world, special events are part of the giving pattern and are often
considered programs of the foundation. We were told of charity balls and other community
events, all of which raise the awareness level of the community and, in particular, current and
potential donors. The funds raised often help with foundation operating costs, but equally as
often are for a special focus. Foundation staff was heavily involved in these events, but
volunteers seemed to take considerable responsibility as well, recognizing that special events are
demanding and time consuming, often pulling staff away from ongoing work, and that they don‟t
often bring a significant return. In the case of Russian foundations they could be an important
vehicle for raising visibility as well as funds.
For the most part, staff leads fund development. We noted above the important role of personal
connections in reaching donors, especially those of the executive director. Indeed, we observed
funds tend to grow more steadily in a foundation where there is a well-known and connected
executive director. In a very few foundations specialist staff are in place. And in some, board
members are active, either through a committee or as a member of the Founders Board or one
other level of governance.
While there is impressive forward movement in fund development, challenges remain. Several
have been identified above; another is the universal one of explaining why a donor should give
Russian Community Foundations Study
92
to the foundation rather than give directly to an organization. There are many answers to this
question, but chief among them is the foundation‟s ability to be a good grant maker. It is to this
topic we will now turn.
Making Grants
Foundations in Russia have developed strong granting processes. The main sources of their
funds to grant are the named funds described above and government. In 2004 the combined
members of the Partnership held 43 grant competitions and gave away 11,377,137 rubles (about
$379,000 USD) to 513 projects (see Table 4). The funds to grant were matched in some cases by
the grantees themselves, bringing the total value of funded projects to 20,730,368 rubles or
almost $700,000 USD.
Russian Community Foundations Study
93
Table 4. Russian CFs Grants Programs41
41 All amounts are shown in rubles.
Togli
atti
Obnin
sk
Rubts
ovsk
Tiu
men
Niz
hni
Novgoro
d
Zhig
ule
vsk
Pen
za
Kal
inin
gra
d
Okty
abrs
k
Chai
kovsk
y
Per
voura
lsk
Sar
atov
Tota
l
# of grant competitions 8 4 8 3 2 1 3 1 2 3 6 1 43
Funds distributed, s 6 329 831 298 903 362 030 1 019 102 920 000 50 000 234 700 85 200 110 452 392 846 6 220 734 1 870 000 11 377 137
Grantees contribution (match) 5 148 476 1 190 205 - 2 402 464 1 225 000 380 000 272 535 100 000 78 773 - 2 347 500 1 930 000 8 736 272
Total budget of projects supported 11 478 307 1 489 108 - 3 421 566 2 145 000 430 000 507 235 180 000 189 225 - 8 568 234 3 800 000 20 730 368
Total number of applications 330 42 111 78 122 14 61 30 5 82 137 131 1 158
# of projects supported 182 33 46 29 23 6 18 4 6 36 95 30 513
Average size of grant 34 780 10 200 6 000 35 141 40 000 7 150 13 038 20 000 20 000 - 65 481 62 333 -
# of seminars conducted 14 8 3 10 5 6 8 4 3 0 8 5 80
# of seminars for applicants 7 4 3 6 3 3 6 3 2 0 4 4 49
# of seminars for grantees 7 4 0 4 2 3 2 1 1 0 4 1 31
Russian Community Foundations Study
94
Community foundations received 1,158 applications for grants and were able to fund almost one
half of them, even though it is likely that not all applications were funded at the level requested.
Foundations partner with local government in various ways, such as working together to
establish – or at least share information with each other on community needs. But chief among
them is granting. It is not unusual for the foundation to take on the responsibility of allocating
the government‟s resources to those organizations who qualify for such municipal support. This
is true mostly in sports and recreation, youth-related organizations and cultural organizations.
Various processes for the foundations to do so, such as receiving and reviewing grant
applications, are in place. In essence this is a service to government, insofar as it brings the
foundation‟s expertise into play (we heard in one instance grantees suggest that if the foundation
could take over all municipal funding, then efficiency would rise significantly). Such granting
further raises the profile and credibility of the foundation, and positions both government and the
foundation as understanding the importance of working in partnership. In this case, that means
working toward a common goal with each partner bringing its particular strength and assets to
the arrangement.
This is an attractive element of granting, but it is not without its cautions. One is the flexibility
the foundation has in who actually gets the grants. The list of prospective grantees is proscribed,
meaning there is no space for other organizations who might offer similar programs, though they
can come to the foundation through other competitions. Another is how the granting process is
tied to the overall relationship with government described elsewhere in this report, and the
influence of that relationship. Yet another is that this could be costly for foundations and the
extent to which government is prepared to contract this service for a fee remains unclear. And
the final caution about heavy reliance on government as a source of granting funds is that
governments and priorities change, and we were told on several occasions that there is no
Russian Community Foundations Study
95
guarantee that the same arrangements will continue. Nevertheless, working with government in
granting is an area with continuing potential.
Business donors are often involved with grant making processes too. Their named fund is
usually directed to a cause or issue (sometimes influenced by the community foundation) based
on community needs and priorities. Their degree of involvement varies from as much as
reviewing applications and identifying potentially successful organizations or being part of the
foundation review committee to as little as receiving a report from the community foundation.
In many instances a business leader whose business is a major donor (often a bank or a large
local employer) is on the board of the foundation and so has a chance to shape the direction of
granting through that participation.
Grantees, overall, have high regard for the community foundations‟ processes. While we did not
speak with any organization that had applied and never received a grant, we did meet with some
who had occasionally been turned down. They described their disappointment, but quickly noted
the fairness of the process meant that they would not always be successful.
Fairness was often mentioned. Donors and grant seekers alike commented that the foundations‟
process was transparent and responsible. That process usually includes publicly announcing the
grant competition, assisting grantees with applications, drawing on an expert panel to review and
recommend successful applicants to the Board, and writing reports at various stages during the
implementation. A few foundations have sustained contact with grantees throughout the grant
period.
In most cases staff has responsibility for granting, though it is the Board who approves grants
and to whom the volunteer panels of experts report. Those volunteers reported a high degree of
satisfaction themselves, and without question the processes used by most foundations give great
comfort and confidence to donors.
Russian Community Foundations Study
96
It is not clear, though, to what extent the NGO sector in various communities knows about the
foundation and feels it could respond to the request for grant proposals. Without generalizing
unfairly, we often observed that grants were made repeatedly to the same organizations, and
several grantees told us that they had applied because they knew someone in the foundation,
usually the executive director. The pattern of repeated grants to the same group is not
necessarily bad, but it does beg the question of how far a foundation‟s reach really extends. In
some ways this is a matter of time, but foundations might want to think now about how to extend
their processes to organizations not yet part of their sphere.
And we encourage them to also think about the impact of their granting – indeed, at least one
person with whom we met raised a concern about impact. Within the community foundation
world often there are at least two ways to think about impact. Can small grants have impact?
And will the issue or cause contribute to a healthier community? Most community foundations
in Russia, for clear reasons, make small grants. Small grants to many organizations raise the
profile of the foundation, because there are many recipients. Small grants can go a long way,
especially if they are the funds that provide something no other funder will offer. And grants
have to be relative to size: in reality there is a limited amount of money to distribute at this stage.
On the other hand, community foundations, ever mindful of their mission to build stronger
communities, should always ask themselves how any particular grant contributes to a stronger
community. Native costumes, fountains and statues, and support for choirs may have great
impact by connecting people with their past, building their identity, and fostering a sense of
community pride, but how do they compare with issues of human rights and poverty? No
community foundation should ever abandon the important work of fostering pride in heritage and
community, but each community foundation should ask itself if this is how their granting can be
most effective.
Russian Community Foundations Study
97
Community foundations are also encouraged to explore the scope of their granting. We were
impressed by the commitment of community foundations to give grants to a broad range of
causes and issues. Though we were surprised, on a few occasions, to learn of grants being made
for infrastructure support – community supports that in most circumstances are paid for by the
municipality. Without question some communities have more resources than others. Those with
poor economies and high poverty may be unable to cover all that is expected. Perhaps in those
communities it is appropriate to pay for roads and street lights, and especially if a non-
government donor so requests. Community foundations make the case that ensuring the streets
are safe and allow people to connect physically with each other is important to building
community capacity. That is surely true, but the question is whose role is it to make sure that
happens and how are the foundation‟s resources best used?
The question of how a community foundation uses its resources is linked to the question of who
makes the choices about a community‟s priorities and needs. One possibility is that a
community foundation relies on data, research or assessments collected by governments,
community organizations, or through independent polling/surveys.
Another possibility is that a community foundation on its own examines issues and priorities.
Some experienced community foundation practitioners suggest that a community foundation,
almost by definition, is deeply knowledgeable about its community and has its finger on the
pulse of issues, needs and priorities. They suggest that community foundations have this
knowledge because of their broad networks and their ability to gather information and undertake
research. This approach speaks to the need for community foundation capacity – it is not easy to
stay well informed and deeply knowledgeable about the whole community.
Still another possibility is that a community foundation regularly conducts a formal community
wide needs assessment (though some frame these as mapping exercises that focus on assets and
Russian Community Foundations Study
98
potential rather than needs), while yet another source of information is donors themselves. This
latter possibility raises an interesting question: do people of wealth and leaders in business
determine a community‟s issues by directing funds in certain directions, and if so how do
foundations ensure that the best interests of the community, not just the donor, are being served.
This is not a uniquely Russian community foundation issue – it is being discussed around the
world.
Two points are critical to this discussion. The first is that there is growing agreement
everywhere that no one sector – government, business, or the not for profit, philanthropic sector
can address community issues independently of the others. So the question is not really who
does what. The question is how do we determine and address the community‟s priorities
together? What skills and resources do we each bring to the task? Each local situation will vary,
depending on its economic and social situation, and it is communication among the various
sectors that will help answer that question.
The second point is that wise community foundations are likely to combine collaborative work
with community leaders and donors (as suggested above) with their own independent
relationships, knowledge, influence and reputation to develop and implement rigorous processes
to determine how their grants – that is, funds entrusted to them by donors – will have the greatest
impact in their community. Making good decisions as a result of thoughtful analysis and
collaborative processes is about accountability – to the community and to donors.
Community foundations often offer resources to their community other than through grants. The
next section looks at the services they provide
Providing Program and Services
Community foundations around the world often describe themselves as having assets other than
financial ones to offer to their community. They have knowledge about community issues, good
Russian Community Foundations Study
99
connections and links throughout the community, skills and credibility. And is it is not
uncommon for community foundations to build on these assets and provide a range of services
that may be non-financial in nature. That is true in Russia as well. Nearly all foundations
provide training and support to grantees or applicants – 45 seminars in 2004. Some work with
successful applicants as they implement their projects. These kinds of programs are entirely in
keeping with a community foundations‟ mandate and indeed may help achieve fund
development and granting goals.
On the other hand, a few foundations offer workshops to NGOs, sometimes in partnership with
others. In 2004, 80 workshops of a general nature were offered to NGOs. Occasionally a
foundation has convened others in the community to look at common issues, though this is
strikingly less frequent in Russia than in CEE. One foundation has a formal program to provide
services, training and consulting to the nonprofit sector. Several foundations commented that
their community needs analysis was helpful to government and, as has already been mentioned,
many foundations see themselves as providing services to businesses and government by helping
them understand the importance of giving and granting. One community foundation is actually
hosting a start up of a child-focused program that will become independent over time.
While offering direct services to the community, mostly to NGOs (but excluding grant applicants
and grantees as well as donors), may add value to the foundation‟s offerings, there are some
potential drawbacks. It has been the experience of small community foundations in Canada and
elsewhere that such undertakings can be a distraction from the core work of the foundation
(developing funds and engaging in good granting). There is also a possibility that the identity of
a community foundation is unclear in the community – what do they really do? - is the question
that is asked. And there are financial costs to providing some services to the community.
Finally, community foundations exist to build the capacity of others to serve the community;
Russian Community Foundations Study
100
their special role is in granting so that others can develop the skills to be resources and trainers
and supports within their sector. We stress, though, that the convening role of community
foundations, especially among grantees and grantseekers, as well as donors is an important one,
and is seen to be part of the core work of a community foundation.
As in all that is characteristic of community foundations, there is great variation in what is
appropriate and what is possible. Providing services and programs beyond granting and fund
development, and the convening of grantees, may be appropriate in some circumstances. But we
urge community foundations, especially in their early days, to think with care about how much
they take on and why they are doing so.
One program of Russian community foundations, of a slightly different order, stands out. That is
YouthBank. Modelled after similar programs in Europe and North America, this initiative draws
young people into the life of their community by inviting them to join YouthBank and become
volunteers and young grant makers. YouthBank welcomes a new generation as participants in
community life, offers then the chance to develop leadership skills and to be a bridge to others.
A small amount of money is given to participants by the foundation for which they then research
and determine how the funds will best be allocated. At present three community foundations in
Russia host YouthBanks and a few others are thinking about beginning one. YouthBanks around
the world are closely linked, though the Russian groups have been most inspired by Europe and
the USA through exchanges and visits as well as website interaction.
All the work of a community foundation has the potential to bring it visibility. Like everywhere
else in the world, community foundations are not well known („the best kept secret‟); like
everywhere else in the world, Russian community foundations are making efforts to become
better known.
Russian Community Foundations Study
101
Raising Visibility
The first question to be asked is “who needs to know about the community foundation?” For
some the answer is that donors and grant seekers need to know. Others would answer by saying
that to be owned by the whole community means to be known by the whole community. No
matter what the answer is or who the audience is, it is hard nearly everywhere to make the
foundation known, and especially when its resources and, to some extent, its impact are modest.
This is likewise the case for Russian foundations, and yet we were struck by the serious and
thoughtful efforts being made by community foundations to raise their visibility. One example,
though an inadvertent way to raise visibility, is simply by making the grant competitions known
through the newspaper. Another is through the grant giving ceremonies often covered by local
media and attended by community members. Still others are through TV ads or newspaper
stories, and of course special events gave opportunities to raise the foundations‟ profiles as well.
Only one or two foundations have dedicated staff for this function, but all put some resources
and efforts into this work. There is a long way to go, but as foundations grow and think about
how they wish to present themselves and to whom, their visibility will surely grow.
Sustainability and Strategies of the Russian Community Foundations
It has been said that community foundations are entrepreneurial and innovative mechanisms for
addressing long-term community sustainability. They have earned this label because they meet
several classic characteristics of social entrepreneurship: someone in the community, often a
leader from government, business or the NGO sector, sees a need and brings passion and skill to
creating an answer to that need. A plan is organized, financial and human resources are
mobilized, and the idea begins to take shape and spread.
In many ways it is fair to identify all community foundations as such, but we suggest it is most
appropriate in countries like Russia and others where the community foundation concept is
emerging, and less true in North America, for instance, where huge funds have been accumulated
Russian Community Foundations Study
102
and in some ways are barriers to nimbleness, flexibility and risk taking – also hallmarks of
entrepreneurial undertakings.
Nearly all Russian community foundations have come into being as the result of the passionate
interest of a local leader, one who is known to other community leaders and has deep roots in the
community. These leaders have been able to mobilize resources and participation, and have
brought new thinking and new ideas to their community. And not only have they been able to
develop their idea in the local community, but they have been able to encourage similar activities
elsewhere. CAF-Russia and The Partnership for Community Foundations have both served as
the locus for collecting and sharing skills and ideas and information; they have been able to
foster this entrepreneurship, though they themselves have not been actors at the local level.
Yet, while community foundation development in Russia can be called entrepreneurial, it may
lack one characteristic of such undertakings. It is not yet clear to what extent sustainability of
foundations themselves will be an issue, but all solid entrepreneurships take the matter of
sustainability very seriously, right from the beginning.
We understand sustainability to have several components, of which financial security is only
one. But it is a good place to begin. Community foundations in Russia, like everywhere, tend to
charge a fee on each of the funds they receive. The fees vary in size. They help the foundation
cover their expenses, and over time can contribute significantly to operational expenses. As
well, as already noted, most community foundations receive some in-kind support, sometimes
quite generous in nature. Some hold special events to raise operating money. And some may
have „angels‟ (CAF-Russia could be in this category) who understand the need for operations
and start-up funds and so help get the foundation known so it can attract more funds and build a
profile in the community. All of this is essential, but may be short lived.
Russian Community Foundations Study
103
In-kind support rarely lasts over the long term: start-up money is just that – early money; special
events seldom bring in significant amounts given the effort to hold them; and fees on funds
seldom cover all operating costs, even though there is a myth that they can in time.
The issue of financial sustainability is global, and the whole community foundation field needs
to think very strategically about a response to this. For now, we caution Russian community
foundations about expanding too quickly by taking on activities not directly related to their core
mission that will drain their resources and by offering more services to donors than they can
afford. We see opportunities for foundations to offer their expertise to other granting bodies,
such as local authorities, and suggest they may be able to contract to deliver those services
efficiently and effectively. We suggest that they develop very clear messages for donors about
the cost of working on their behalf and urge them not to shy away from speaking about the cost
of running their foundation.
But sustainability is about more than money – in fact, paying attention to the other aspects of
sustainability can help with the financial challenges. Even thinking about long-term
sustainability can be helpful, as it forces the foundations to plan accordingly. Planning for the
long-term, with an emphasis on strategic thinking, is critical to the long-term success of any
foundation. We noted that long term planning is rare in community foundations, for acceptable
reasons, but urge that this become a priority for boards and staff over the next few years.
In the course of thoughtful long-term planning, several important issues, in addition to financial
ones, will no doubt come up. One has to do with leadership. While some foundations with
whom we met have terms for board members, it is not clear how rigorously they are adhered to
and how well formal mechanisms have been established to recruit new board members in a
manner that is inclusive and broad. It is possible that (as is the case in many places around the
Russian Community Foundations Study
104
world) recruitment methods will just perpetuate an inner circle of who you know – in the case of
Russia, business people – to become new board members. Board members are the face of the
community foundation; they are the public leaders. Having strong, well-supported and well-
respected board members who can speak with clarity and conviction about the community
foundation and who reflect the community‟s makeup is one of the keys to sustainability. Board
members have an opportunity to set an example of leadership that will send a positive signal to
the community, encourage more donations and position the community foundation as an
important and worthwhile community resource.
Leadership emanates from staff as well as board members. Without question several of the
community foundations in Russia enjoy strong staff leadership. In fact, it was not unusual to
hear donors, grantees, and board members alike quickly indicate that the staff and especially the
executive director were the greatest assets of the foundation. This is encouraging and critical to
success. The challenge now will be to ensure there is continuity in such leadership, for staff
leadership will inevitably change over time. We urge community foundations to include
discussion about succession planning within staff as part of their long-term, strategic thinking
and planning.
The Partnership for Community Foundations has a role to play in sustainability. Two major
factors led to the creation of the Partnership in 2003: the initiative of the Togliatti Community
Foundation and a grant from the Ford Foundation. We have enough evidence to say that without
those two factors the Partnership would not have emerged and would not exist in its current
form. Back in 2003, most Russian Community Foundations leaders were not ready to spend
time and energy on developing something outside their respective cities. Many of them
questioned the very idea of the Partnership, and they did not see any way of using their limited
resources to support the Partnership. “Our donors would never support me in spending resources
outside our city”, said one of our informants.
Russian Community Foundations Study
105
Today the situation is different. The Partnership has developed as a way for peers and
colleagues to meet and exchange information and ideas, statistics and data, and to learn new
skills. Through its regular meetings it serves to motivate and inspire continued commitment, and
to offer a venue for being exposed to speakers and leaders from other areas of life not ordinarily
available to individual community foundations. A network such as this one has other potential
as well. It can promote the concept of community foundations to a larger audience than any
single foundation can, and turn that attention into resources for collective community foundation
efforts such as a website or even new funds, and it can serve to encourage good practice in all
foundation activities.
The role of the Partnership can be described as strengthening the performance of local
foundations as well as building the capacity and visibility of the movement as a whole. But this
role should be discussed, examined and developed into a clear Partnership strategy that reflects
the needs and interests of all the partners. Many leaders of the Russian community foundations
expressed the need for developing the Partnership‟s long-term strategy and clarifying its mission.
We hope that the Partnership will examine some of its own practices through a process of
strategic planning. Ongoing leadership that comes from various foundations and includes a
balance between newly established and more established foundations, and a good mix of gender
and age will be important to its ongoing capacity. Other areas we hope a planning and thinking
process could focus: A willingness to accept that even in Russia one community foundation can
and will differ from another; an effort to provide support and resources to members at varying
stages of development including the start-up stage; and a willingness to be inclusive about
membership.
We suggest that the Partnership carefully consider if it‟s time to formally register the
Partnership. An informal self-directed network can be effective enough in satisfying its
Russian Community Foundations Study
106
members‟ needs, and requires fewer resources to sustain than a formally registered entity. One
of the key indicators of readiness for formalization to be considered by the Partnership could be
willingness of the network members to pay membership fees or at least cover some expenses
related to the network functioning.
Working collaboratively with CAF-Russia is something to be admired and continued, but we
also urge stronger links between the Partnership and peer groups outside Russia, including active
participation in WINGS-CF. Language is an issue for Russian participation globally, but there
are English speakers in many community foundations, especially young ones who are the very
future of foundations and could benefit themselves, their own foundation‟s future and the
movement within Russia by broader participation.
The Partnership for Community Foundations has significant potential for adding to the
sustainability of the concept in Russia and we strongly encourage its support and development.
Recommendations
As community foundations individually and collectively plan for their future – a future that holds
promise as well as challenge - we offer several recommendations that we believe can be helpful.
We recognize that each community foundation not only finds itself at a different stage of
development but also exists in its own unique context. So we encourage each foundation to
spend some time first reflecting on these recommendations in their own context, and then
addressing them in ways that continue to honour the history and special nature of their local
community.
As they do that, we urge them to keep in mind that each community foundation is part of a larger
growing movement that has the potential for heightened profile and visibility for the concept of
community foundations and for foundations individually. That means there will be some
common features among all community foundations, a fact that the Partnership has embraced
Russian Community Foundations Study
107
and is attempting to strengthen. We hope that the Partnership will continue to grow in its role of
mutual support and we add recommendations to them as well to individual foundations.
1) Community foundations build on current efforts to stimulate the culture of giving by
encouraging new donors, including businesses and especially individuals, and increasing
funding levels from existing donors;
2) Community foundations reach out to organizations to whom they have not previously made
grants so that their granting can have a wider and deeper impact and they can become a
greater resource for addressing community issues;
3) The leadership of community foundations, including the Boards and executive directors,
develop long-term plans that will ensure their ongoing success and the continuity of
leadership at all levels;
4) The Partnership for Community Foundations be supported and strengthened so it can become
a more inclusive resource for emerging and established foundations, and become a more
active participant in global networks, including WINGS;
5) Community foundations, perhaps through the Partnership, continue their efforts to gather and
maintain statistics and data that will tell the individual and collective story of community
foundation development to various audiences, including donors, the media, governments and
other funders.
Russian Community Foundations Study
108
References
Baranova Irina, Zdravomyslova Olga, Kigai Natalia, and Kiseleva Ksenia. 2001. "Attitude
Towards Charity in Russia". Moscow: CAF-Russia.
CAF-Russia. 2003. "Program for Developing Corporate and Private Philanthropy in Russia".
Retrieved November 15, 2005 from http://www.cafrussia.ru/kf/research1.shtml.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (ed) 2005. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Evans, A. B., Jr. 2002. "Recent Assessments of Social Organizations in Russia". Retrieved
September 20, 2005 from
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200207/ai_n9119395/pg_5.
Gambrell, J. 2004. "Philanthropy in Russia: New Money Under Pressure" in Carnegie Reporter,
3(1), 1-5.
Krestnikova, I., and Levshina, Y. 2002. "Corporate Philanthropy: Myths and Reality". Results of
sociological research. Moscow: CAF-Russia.
Partnership of Russian Community Foundations. 2003. "Partnership Agreement of Russian
Community Foundations". Retrieved November 21, 2005 from
http://www.fondtol.org/index.php?a=show&idlink=66.
Partnership of Russian Community Foundations. 2005. "2004 Annual Report". Tiumen.
Patton, M. Q. 2001. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd. ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Sacks, E. W. 2005. "Community Foundation Global Status Report (WINGS-CF)". Retrieved
November 21, 2005 from http://www.wingsweb.org/information/publications_community.cfm.
SCCIS. August 1999. "Charitable Activities in Siberia". Research findings. Effect of Presence.
Stake, R. E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yakimets, V. 2001. "New in Relationships Between Government and NGOs". Conference paper
presented at Russia: New Trends in Political, Economic and Social Development, Volgograd,
Russia.