Funder Focus: Bruce Lourie and the Richard Ivey Foundation
May 3, 2004
By Nicole Zummach
This month in our Funder Focus, we feature the Richard
Ivey Foundation,
which was established by the Ivey family in 1947 to improve
and enrich the well-being of Canadians. CharityVillage spoke with
executive director Bruce Lourie
about the evolution of the foundation, its current funding
priorities, and its ongoing efforts to be an effective and
accountable grantmaker.
CharityVillage: How has the foundation evolved
over the years?
Bruce Lourie: Like a lot of traditional family
foundations, initially
it was operated by the founders, who made grant decisions
based on the
needs of the community. In this case they were based in
London, Ontario
so a considerable amount of the early funding by the foundation was
rooted in the London community. Through the 1970s and 80s it
became more formal, with a full-time administrator helping the foundation.
In the 1990s they brought on professional staff to work more closely
with grantees. Then, starting in 2002, they continued with
that evolution
to the point where staff are much more directly
involved with making
grant decisions than has ever been the case in the past.
CV: How have things changed since you came on
board as executive director? Would you still consider it to be very
much a family foundation?
BL: Absolutely. It's a very strong family foundation
with strong
family roots. The board continues to consist of four family members
who are all very involved in the foundation. I guess the
big difference
now is that the foundation really sees itself as primarily
an environmental
funder. When I arrived there were two major funding programs, one in
the health technology sector and one in the conservation field. Last
year, the foundation decided to conclude the health
technology program.
It was set up as a five-year program and was in its fifth
year. Essentially,
all of the resources that were available for that program
were put into
the environment. At the same time, we redesigned the biodiversity program following a comprehensive program review. It is now called "Conserving Canada's Forests".
It's a very focused program that looks at
forest conservation and sustainable
forest management across Canada. The new program provides grants to organizations working outside of Ontario; previously the focus was in Ontario.
One of the things that came out of the review the
foundation conducted
was that the area where it seemed to have the greatest influence was advancing policy. The new Conserving Canada's Forests
program is very much policy-focused, whereas in the past
the program included
primary academic research, public awareness, and education. The new
program is tightly focused on forest policy and sustainable
forestry practices.
CV: Why did you decide to focus your funding in this area
and what types of groups are you funding?
BL: There was an independent evaluation undertaken
of the biodiversity
funding. The result of that review was that the policy work had the
greatest impact. It was as simple as that. I think the
foundation could
see itself playing a useful role in supporting policy work.
We are continuing to fund many of the same kinds of
organizations. They include the major conservation
organizations, groups like World Wildlife Fund, the Canadian Parks
and Wilderness Society, and then some smaller regional groups. For
example, we just funded the Yukon Conservation Society last year and
the Alberta Wilderness Association. These are organizations that are
really working to improve conservation policy and forest practices in
Canada. A considerable investment has also been made in the Forest
Stewardship Council, which is basically working to promote
sustainable certification in Canada. The foundation has a strong
interest in forest certification.
CV: What were some of the highlights from the
health technology program that you wrapped up in 2003? What were you
hoping to achieve?
BL: We just finished a review of that program. When
the program
was set up five years ago the foundation was under the
impression that
Ontario was falling behind in the use of information
technology to improve
healthcare services delivery. In particular, the one technology that
was being looked at was teletriage. At
the same time
the province was just beginning to pilot a teletriage program that
led to the creation of Telehealth Ontario, the provincial teletriage health
phone-in line. There was a sense that there were many benefits in
this kind of technology and at the time Ontario was experiencing a healthcare
system crisis. So, the foundation ended up supporting some
of the only
independently funded evaluation and research around the
implementation
of teletriage.
The series of grants that the foundation was particularly proud of were those
that supported
the National Initiative for Telehealth Guidelines. Essentially, the
foundation single-handedly supported the development of this
multi-stakeholder
national body that has established a framework for guidelines on the
use of telehealth services in Canada. That is something that I think
is quite important given that it was a very new and
complicated field.
By all accounts it has been a tremendously successful program with solid outcomes and one of the most impressive collaborations I have ever witnessed.
CV: Aside from the forest conservation
program, the remainder of your grant budget each year is set aside
for director-initiated grantmaking. Why did you decide to go this
route rather than accepting grant applications?
BL: I think this decision was largely due to the fact that the foundation was receiving requests from hundreds and hundreds of organizations
that were all doing very different things. It became
difficult for the
board to evaluate those projects, not being close enough
to them. With the director-initiated program they are providing quite
substantial grants to organizations that they have some
direct familiarity
with. This way, they can make a more confident assessment
of the activities
that are being funded.
Last year, the director-initiated grants included
the Royal Ontario Museum, the Canadian Institute for Advanced
Research, United Way, the Toronto General Hospital, the Ontario
College of Art and Design, and Mount Sinai Hospital - mostly large health
and culture institutions based in Toronto.
CV: What was your total grantmaking for 2003?
BL: The total grants approved in 2003 was about $2.1 million.
Actual grants paid out were $2.5 million, since we made payments on grants approved earlier.
CV: In recent years the foundation has placed
more of an emphasis on grant effectiveness and improved
accountability. What does grant effectiveness mean to you?
BL: Part of that was the decision to move to a focus on policy
in the forest program. Basically, the assessment was that
grants related
to forest policy and sustainable forest practices appeared to be more
effective, from our perspective, than grants going to
primary academic
research or public education. The new Conserving Canada's
Forests program
has quite specific goals and activities and a
well-thought-out approach
in terms of what the foundation is trying to accomplish. All of
the proposals
are evaluated against the foundation's goals and
objectives. We've recently
introduced an evaluation structure that will help us evaluate the program.
This will help us determine whether grants are effective and in that
way be more accountable to ourselves and our grantees.
Our view is that we are not asking people to produce information that
isn't ultimately going to benefit them and the foundation. It's not
an exercise in reporting for the sake of reporting. I would
say in the
past that the foundation did not place much emphasis on the information grantees were providing. Like many foundations, the focus was on proposal review, not post-evaluation.
We're basically introducing systems so thatwe have
the information
we need in order to determine whether our programs are effective and
the funds that we are distributing are really making a
difference.
CV: Do you work at all in partnership with
government, corporations,
or other funders?
BL: That is certainly something we are going to try
and do more of in the future. We're very active in the Canadian
Environmental Grantmakers' Network. I was one of the founders, and am on the board now. I'm also on the board of the
Environmental Grantmakers Association in the US. The whole idea of
working collaboratively with other funding partners is really
important and something that I think we are going to be doing a lot
more of.
There is a lot more collaboration now than there was ten years ago. I
think people realize that if three people get together and contribute
$50,000 each to a specific initiative they are going to make a much greater impact than if
just one person decided to throw in $50,000 or three unrelated grants were made. There's a general
recognition within the sector that working together is a useful
thing. This may also include establishing partnerships with supportive businesses.
The idea that foundations see themselves as partners in the work that is being undertaken is a
growing trend in the sector that nonprofit
groups sometimes feel uncomfortable with. I think there needs to be recognition on
the part of the nonprofit sectorthat it's not because foundations
want to oversee how the money is spent or control the agenda. It's
because they have a genuine interest in seeing that the greatest
amount of progress is made. They want to feel that they are able to
help in any way they can to make that happen. The only way a
foundation can feel that way is to participate more fully in the
activities. I know there is some tension around organizations just
thinking that foundations write the cheque and then 'we'll go do the
work'. As foundations become more experienced and bring in
professional staff with expertise in the sector, their job is not
managing money and writing cheques. They really see their job as
working with the sector to ensure that things move forward in the
best way possible.
CV: Where would you like to see the foundation in the next
few years?
BL: Well, I think we've made a considerable amount of change
in the past year. As we go forward, I'd like to see that we are able
to implement the programs as we've designed them and
continually adapt
to the opportunities that are out there.
Bruce Lourie has been with the Richard Ivey Foundation
for eighteen months.
Prior to that, he was a consultant who worked with a
variety of nonprofit
and for-profit organizations. For more information about the foundation, visit www.ivey.org.
