Surdna Foundation

The Surdna Foundation, a New York City-based national family foundation that was founded by John E. Andrus in 1917, seeks a Grants Manager to support its office in midtown Manhattan. With assets totaling more than $800 million and an annual grantmaking budget in excess of $38 million, Surdna focuses in three grantmaking areas: Sustainable Environments, Strong Local Economies, and Thriving Cultures. The Foundation aims to foster just and sustainable communities in the United States and to advance national action on sustainability. The work environment at Surdna is team-oriented, collegial, and one in which diversity is valued.

Office of Grants Management
The Office of Grants Management (OGM) oversees the policies and procedures of grantmaking for the Foundation.  This includes legal compliance, review of grantee financials, management of grants budgeting, intake of grant requests, payments and reporting.  The OGM will also provide support to the Foundation's programs and senior management to aid in organizational planning and learning about its grantmaking portfolios.

The grants management functions of the Foundation have traditionally been decentralized among the Director of Grants Management, administrative and program staff.  The Foundation has decided to centralize these functions in the OGM, adding the position of Grants Manager.  This two-person grants management team will create systems and practices that support programs and grantees in service of mission, allowing for creativity, responsiveness and learning. The OGM will work with the grants programs and senior management to build a new team approach to grantmaking at Surdna, and support greater collaboration across the Foundation's three grantmaking areas.

Grants Manager Position
The Grants Manager will report to the Director of Grants Management and Information Systems and will provide ongoing support and collaboration with the Foundation's  grants programs.  S/he will share responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the departments, from grant intake through payments, reporting and grant closeout, and serve as an important resource to foundation staff and grant applicants.

Specific Responsibilities

Grants Administration

• Manages the intake of letters of inquiry and grant proposals.
• Sends declination letters to grant applicants that will not receive grants.
• Works with program staff to invite new proposals, and assisting grantees throughout the proposal process.
• Tracks and reviews grant proposals and progress reports for completeness and compliance with IRS regulations.
• Responds to applicant and grantee questions regarding proposal status, subsequent payments, and other administrative inquiries.
• Reviews prospective grantee financial statements and organizational budgets.
• Drafts, proofreads and sends out grant agreement letters.
• Codes and updates grant records in the grants management system.
• Oversees the management of the Foundation's central grant files and ensures the integrity and completeness of each grant record, from initial request to grant close-out.
• Assists the Director of Grants Management in the review of docket materials (prepared by program staff) and preparation of dashboards and other data visualizations to reflect the Foundation's state of grantmaking and recommendations.
• Reviews progress report budget to ensure that grantee expenditures are consistent with the approved grant budget.
• Follows up with grantees to return paperwork for payment and reporting.
• Manages the employee matching grants program.

Organization Learning and Planning

• Provides data-driven research and reports to programs and senior management to assist with grant planning and learning.
• Assists in developing and maintaining an online grants management procedures manual.
• Assists with the management of long-range planning such as preparing the annual grants management calendar to be used by all staff and board members.
• Provides orientation and on-going training to incoming and existing program staff about the grant making process.
• Provide in-house Gifts training and acts as the primary resource to program staff.
• Responds to external surveys and data requests on the Foundation's grantmaking.

Qualifications

The Grants Manager position requires a college bachelor-level degree with a minimum of 3-5 years experience in a grants management-related role.  Experience in a position requiring knowledge of grantmaking rules and regulations, and private foundation policies preferred.

This position requires strong analytical skills, particularly with financial data and budgets, as well as demonstrated verbal and written communication skills. Candidates must be detail-oriented with strong organizational skills, able to set priorities and work in a self-directed fashion, and willing and able to think outside the box and contribute new ideas and solutions. Experience with establishing organizational systems to improve efficiency in a changing environment is a plus.  High-level proficiency of MS Excel, MS Word, and Gifts for Windows or other grants management software is required.

The Grants Manager must be flexible, a team player requiring minimal supervision and one who approaches work with a solution-oriented view. The Foundation has a relatively small staff, and judgment, integrity, and a sense of humor are traits that are particularly important in an organization of the Foundation's size, where teamwork is essential to effectiveness. The ability to work collegially with staff and an expressed interest in and strong commitment to the Foundation's mission and grants programs are key qualifications.

Competitive salary and excellent benefits.

Surdna Foundation is an equal opportunity employer.

Please click here to submit resume and cover letter

No phone calls please.

A first review of applications will occur on October 28^th and will be accepted on a rolling basis until the position is filled.

Thriving Cultures

• Report: Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change, High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy, by Holly Sidford

Strong Local Economies

• Article: A Year of Unbalanced Growth, National Employment Law Project
• Chart: The State of Working America
• Remarks at the National Domestic Worker Alliance Inaugural Care Congress, by Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor

Sustainable Environments

• Report Summary: Green Jobs Research Findings and Recommendations, by Spitfire Strategies
• Report Summary: Grantee Assessment Trend Report, by Spitfire Strategies
• Article: Romney Attacks Environmentally Friendly Jobs, Ignoring the 64,000 Jobs Created in His State, New York Times

By Beth Herz, Senior Associate for Programs and Strategy, Surdna Foundation
(Written for the Philanthropy New York blog)

Leading the charge on an issue can bring an organization’s work into the spotlight—and sometimes also under a microscope. Madeline Janis, Executive Director of the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), learned this when her own organization’s work came under scrutiny for less-than-benevolent reasons. While under her leadership, LAANE learned that an unnamed political ops firm was conducting a careful investigation of all of its records, apparently intending to find fodder for a smear campaign.

On November 29th, Philanthropy New York hosted a funders briefing to discuss the rise of this type of political attack on advocacy work and the roles foundations can play in responding. The briefing’s two panels included Madeline Janis’s story and a case study from Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood. Several experts provided a background on trends in the field and recommendations for preparedness and Pablo Farías, a Vice President at the Ford Foundation, brought a funder’s perspective. (The event was co-sponsored by the Ford Foundation, the Ms. Foundation for Women, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the New World Foundation, the Ottinger Foundation, Public Interest Projects, the Surdna Foundation, and the Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock.)

Examples of political offensives against social justice advocacy abound; Tarso Ramos of Political Research Associates presented a collection of cases. Attacks on movements and institutions, from recent attempts to defund Planned Parenthood to the anti-Obama “birther” controversy, represent a trend which, according to Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice, is “going to get a lot worse in an election year.”

The “rightwing sting” effort to cut Planned Parenthood’s federal funding set the organization into motion on an active response, Cecile Richards explained. Reframing the public discourse, the organization revealed that the proposed policy change would mean that anyone attempting to receive preventive care through a government program like Medicaid or the Title X family planning program would no longer have access to services at Planned Parenthood health centers. Through a campaign incorporating television ads and an online storybank representing women and men from every state, Planned Parenthood was able to educate the public and, ultimately, preserve its ability to provide care through federal programs.

Based on LAANE’s experience facing a political offensive, Madeline Janis advised nonprofits and foundations in similar situations to “take active steps” at the first sign of an attack. LAANE’s own actions included talking to every partner and funder, consulting with a crisis PR firm, scouring all records internally for any potential blemishes, and making everything accessible to the public. Finally, its staff launched a preemptive “reveal yourself” campaign, aimed at drawing attention to the funder of the politically motivated investigation. To date, the client initiating the search has not revealed itself, but has apparently ceased its efforts.

In line with Madeline’s advice, Nan Aron urged everyone to “keep your house in order,” carefully maintaining 990 tax returns and other records. Mark Fabiani, Principal at Fabiani & Lehane, agreed: his three principles for organizations are “prepare, prevent, and preempt.”

The philanthropic sector once strived to be an invisible and politically neutral benevolent force, Pablo Farías noted, but as it has expanded, it has also become more embedded in political discourse. A social justice mission like the Ford Foundation’s necessitates a push toward systems change; these philanthropic efforts will inevitably confront power and unearth opposition. Recognizing this, the Ford Foundation has developed clear goals and resources that allow it “to have risk capital to invest” in advocacy activities.

Funders can play a key role in helping organizations be resilient. The co-sponsors of this event came together both to learn from cases of political attacks and to discuss how they might coalesce in partnership with targeted organizations. With unprecedented amounts of money now going into political offensives against advocacy organizations, the ongoing partnership and support of funders in the face of attacks will be essential for the health of nonprofits like LAANE and Planned Parenthood.

Author’s note: Last week, supporters of Planned Parenthood organized in its defense when the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation indicated that it would cut future funding for breast cancer screenings and breast health education at Planned Parenthood health centers in response to a House Committee investigation. Soon after, the foundation reversed its decision. More information can be found in this article.

Beth Herz is Senior Associate for Programs and Strategy at the Surdna Foundation, a New York-based family foundation that fosters just and sustainable communities guided by principles of social justice in the U.S. She is currently also a PLACES Fellow through The Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities.

MAP-21 Misses The Chance to Meet 21st Century Needs

by Geoff Anderson, President and CEO of Smart Growth America

During the nearly three years that Congress dithered on updating our national investment plan for transportation, we in the Transportation for America coalition met with and surveyed thousands of Americans, in every region, to hear their needs and desires.  A while back, I summed up what we heard this way:

"If Americans themselves were crafting the transportation bill, we would see a doubling of share for public transportation; an ironclad system of accountability for restoring existing roads and bridges, before simply building more of them; and a strong commitment to making our streets safe enough for kids to bicycle to school, or so seniors can walk to a nearby restaurant or the drug store."

I'm sad to say that Congress has failed and taken a step back on all of these aims in MAP-21, the recently reauthorized Transportation Bill. The frustrating thing is that we were so close until the very last minute.

Transportation for America and our allies had argued successfully for major improvements in a Senate bill that passed overwhelmingly with votes from both parties. The House, on the other hand, had tried and failed to force a more extreme measure through, and its negotiators unable to come to consensus on anything entered conference discussions with nothing more than a three-month extension of current law.

That extension, however, was laced with poison pills - including Canada's Keystone XL pipeline -- that the Senate's negotiators, wanted to shield their colleagues and President Obama from. In a classic case of legislative extortion, the House negotiators succeeded in forcing the Senate to "compromise" - in backroom deals at the last possible minute - by eliminating or mangling many hard-won reforms.

The resulting two-year measure, signed into law July 6, could have been much worse: House leaders had pushed to eliminate federal support for transit and safe walking and biking altogether, but were repulsed thanks in large measure to our campaign's efforts.

The result is a mixed bag that is unlikely to take the nation forward.  MAP-21 keeps overall funding for both highway and transit at current levels.  But it eliminates dedicated funding for repair while failing to hold states accountable for maintaining roads and bridges.  Money for projects that make it safer to walk and bicycle was cut by a third, and states can divert half of that money to other uses - even to build another highway through a once-walkable neighborhood. In addition, in order to build highway projects faster - the law reduces opportunities to raise concerns about environmental and health impacts while pressuring agencies to make snap decisions to meet arbitrary deadlines-even though projects are often in fact delayed by a lack of money.   On the positive side, we succeeded in ensuring that half of this money goes directly to local communities to allocate.

Our base pushed hard to establish some key national objectives for our investment: improved energy security and reduced oil consumption; improving access for all incomes and keeping household transportation costs down; and, ensuring that your existing assets aren't neglected. And we wanted performance measures in order to track progress.  MAP-21 does take some steps forward in measuring the performance of transportation investments. States and regions are required to set performance targets for highway and bridge conditions, freight movement, and safety; some regions are also required to look at air quality and congestion.   It's a good first step toward a truly performance-based system, but it has few teeth and, in our view, a blinkered perspective on what success should look like.

In fact, in this ultra-partisan Congress, in this election year, legislators considered "success" to be any bill that could pass, in any form.  But we don't believe it serves Americans well, or that it can long stand in the face of the facts of modern life: Public transit ridership is at historic highs, as is the demand for the walkable neighborhoods that are the only places holding their value in the long real estate downturn.  We all are driving less, and young people in particular are foregoing car ownership and adopting new travel habits in the urban areas they prefer.  Baby boomers are beginning to retire and leave their commutes behind, as they look to live in places where they can remain independently mobile for many years to come.  We have 24 months to make sure Congress catches up to reality in the next bill - and not a minute to waste!